Laserfiche WebLink
FILE # LA23-000062 <br />17 June 2024 <br />Page 6 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />8. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property <br />right of the applicant. Substantial property right is provided by the principal structure. The applicant is <br />requested to improve their lake stair for access to the lake. The request for a 165-square-foot shed is not <br />necessary for the preservation of the property and is out of convenience. This criterion is not met. <br />9. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, or morals, or in <br />any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances is contrary to <br />the intent of the zoning chapter. This criterion is not met. <br />10. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to <br />alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The currently requested variances are not necessary to increase <br />functionality of the home, and will merely serve as a convenience to the owners. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />The Commission may recommend or the Council may impose conditions in granting variances. Any conditions <br />imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. <br />No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is <br />located. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />To date, no public comments have been received. <br /> <br />Grading Comments by City Engineer, Adam Edwards <br />1. It does not appear the proposed improvements will have any negative impact to the drainage of the area. <br />2. Prior to issuance of permits all improvements should be depicted on the same site plan. There are <br />inconsistencies between the site plan provided by Acre Land Surveying and the Wall plan prepared by <br />Hagen. As an example: the Acre Survey has a proposed elevation for the second stair landing from the top <br />as 954’ but the Hagen plan has retaining walls that support a landing elevation of 956’. This is a 2-foot <br />difference in elevation. <br />3. Prior to the issuance of permits the retaining wall engineering for the boulder walls should be updated. <br />The layout in the engineering provided does not match the layout on the Hagen Landscaping plan. The <br />building official will need to review these before permit issuance. <br />4. The photos provided indicate a slope pretty much devoid of vegetation. The applicant should consider <br />adding some deep-rooted vegetation to help hold the soil in place. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a <br />reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the <br />granting of the requested CUP? <br />3. Does the Commission find the variance request for a shed meets the practical difficulty standards? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> <br />Planning Commission Consideration <br />Options for Motion: <br />1. Deny the application as applied. The practical difficulty standards have not been met to support granting <br />the variance request, The application is missing information in order to comply with the conditional use <br />permit standards; or <br />2. Move to table the application and direct the applicant to provide the requested information for Planning <br />Commission review on the July agenda; or <br />3. Offer a split recommendation, if the Commission is generally comfortable with the proposal, move to <br />approve the CUP with conditions and direct the applicant to provide the requested information AND deny <br />13