Laserfiche WebLink
#OS-3086 1145 Sixth Avenue North <br /> � February18,2005 <br /> Page 5 <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Has tl�e applicani presented hardships adequate to support granting of the requested variances? <br /> If not, should additioiial desigu revisions be reconunended to reduce or elimin�te the need for <br /> variances? <br /> 2. Will there be any impacts to the sunounding neighUorhood iFthis request is approved? If so, <br /> what re�sonable conditions can be established that will mitigate those impacts? <br /> 3. Does the Plaiuling Commission have auy concerns about this proposal that have not Ueen <br /> addressed? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Applicants were iiutiallybrought uito tlus process as a result of a misinterpretation of the defuution ofthe <br /> `top ofbluf�by their surveyor. This ultimately lead them and their architect down a design path that <br /> required what staff advised were tulacceptable encroaclunents ofthe bluff. Since then,theyhave revised <br /> the plaii and slufted the house location to eliminate auy encroachments of the bhiff itself,but still propose <br /> encroaclunents of the required 30' setback fi•om the top of Uluff. <br /> I�i past rebuild situations where site conditioils related to the shape,size or character of the la.i�d,the City <br /> has allowed some encroaclunents of the bluff setback. A recent example is 4753 North Shore Drive, <br /> where ahouse setback of 15'fiom the top ofbluffwas approved,u1 orderto allowthat 8,000 s.f.,50'wide <br /> lot to have a home meeting the 1500 s.f.stnichiral coverage allohilent.In that case,the bluff had a tuuform <br /> 55-60%slope down to tlie lake,and special engineering was required after variance approval to ensure <br /> the foundations remained stable so close to the bluff. I�i the cLUrent sit�iation,slopes dowi�lull of the <br /> proposed garage are in the range of 20-25%for the first 20-30',then drop quickly at a unifonn 50%to <br /> the wetland. Slope stability for the garage here is less critical than for the North Shore Drive exainple. <br /> I�Z the cturent case,however,the lot is nntch larger.The City is requested to grant variances for a footpru�t <br /> approaclung 5,000 s.f on a buildavle envelope of about 16,000-18,000 s.f.,witlun a 3-plus-acre lot. The <br /> portion ofthe lot that is Uuildable is sinall conlpared to the entire lot area.There certaully are topograpluc <br /> constrainfis to the site. Nevertheless,staff is hard-pressed to find a conclusive hardship,given that a <br /> nlultitude of different home designs could be built on the site witliout the need for variances. <br /> Staff recommends as follows: <br /> 1. Denial of the requested variances for struchu�al encroacluilents of the required 30'setUack from <br /> top of bluff. <br /> 2. Denial of any required vlriances for retaining walls or grading witllin 5' of tlie lot side lot line. <br /> 3. Approval of anynecessaty grading within the bluff and bluff impact zone to allow for restoration <br /> of grades after the existing home and garage are reinoved. <br /> 4. Direct applicaut to re-design to eliminate any structural encroachments of the 30'bluff setback. <br />