06-15-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE#15-3748 15 June 2015 Page 4 of 4 Practical DifficuFties Statement Applicant has completed #he Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additiona!testimony regarding the application. Practical Dlfficulties Analysis The lot size and area are preexisting conditions, not changed by the applicant. As noted previously, the side yard setbacks overlap; respecting the setbacks woufd not allow any construction, or enlargement of the existing structure. Staff finds that the proposed improvements are consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and the applicant has made an attempt to mitigate or minimize negative impacts to the adjoining properties, Further, it does not appear that the adjacent property owners will be adversely impacteci by the redevelopment of the property. Staff finds that there are special conditions relating to the existing home and property which support granting the requested average lakeshore, side yard, lot size and Iot area variances. Issues for Conside�ation 1. Does the Planning Commission flnd that that the second level deck negatively impact views from the property owner to the south? 2. D�es the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, wi(! no# alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission �nd it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission should evafuate the practical difficulty criteria against the requested varia�ces and make a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances to allaw the redeveloprrtent of the property for a new two story residential structure with attached garage.