Laserfiche WebLink
*03.2917 <br />Aagatt Ift. 200) <br />r*f*4of7 <br />disiricl, which is a 30’ front and rear yard setback and 10’ interior side yard setback. The <br />applicant is proposing 29.6’ front >-ard setback. 10 6’ side yard setback, and a 27.7 ’ rear <br />yard setback. <br />Creek Setback Variance <br />The Zoning Ordinance requires a 75 ’ setback from a designated creek to all structures. <br />The applicants property is adjacent to Siubb.s Bay Creek and is therefore located uithin <br />the 0*75 setback /one. The applicant’s current home maintains a 68 ’ creek setback. <br />With the applicant’s proposal, a second story is proposed for the section of the structure <br />that IS within the 0-75 ’ setback zone. Even though the creek setback isn’t changing, <br />structure massing is and a creek setback variance is required for the second stor\ <br />Hardcover Vari.incc <br />Due to structure existing within the 0-75 ’ creek setback, a hardcover variance is required <br />as well. Currently 325 s.f of structure exists in the 0-75 ’ zone. The applicant is <br />proposing to add a second stor>- which doesn’t Increase the hardcoxer but adds mass to <br />the 0-75 zone ^d re.sults in a variance. Because the applicant is doing substantial <br />renovations which amount to a rebuild, stafl' would recommend that all structure uithin <br />the 0-75 ’ /one be eliminated. <br />The applicant is also requesting a hardcover variance to allow 43.75®/o hardcover in the <br />75-250’ zone when 25“/o is normally required. This is due to the configuration of the lot <br />and the majonty of the area being within the 0-75 ’ creek setback /one <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A. and should be asked for <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Anahsis <br />S^lT finds that due to the limited buildabic area outside the 75 ’ creek setback (609.5 s.f.), <br />a hardship exists which would support variance approval. Should the Planning <br />(Tommission consider this, a front and rear yard setback of 30’ when 50’ is required and a <br />side yard setback of 10 when 30’ is required, following •/, acre setbacks, would be <br />rearonable (*« attached E^ibits G and H) The existing proposal is requesting a rear <br />yard setback of 27.7 feet. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the 27.7 ’ <br />setback IS appropriate or if a 30’ setback should be required. <br />Suffdoesn-I find a valid hardship which would justify granting a creek s.tback variance <br />' r I iiTii ihfa .J