Laserfiche WebLink
• . <br /> . FILE#12-3547 <br /> May 16,2012 <br /> Page 3 of 3 <br /> potential negative impacts to the bluff and the vegetation which stabilizes the bluff from sfump, <br /> � erosion and slope failure. Encroachmehts into the sensitive areas increase the potential for <br /> irreversible damage to occur. Regarding bluff areas in general it is staff's position that, <br /> particularly in new construction situations, all bluff setbacks should be met, and variances <br /> should not be granted. <br /> Buildability , <br /> If no variances are granted, this lot will not have a buildable envelope sufficient to construct a <br /> single family residence. Whether the applicant has a reasonable use of the property if it cannot <br /> be built on is debatable, but there is no question that the lack of sufficient buildable area is a <br /> practical difficulty. <br /> In the interest of creating a usable buildable area within the property, staff has proposed a set <br /> of setback parameters which we believe should be acceptable to the City while protecting the <br /> bluff and bluff impact zone and not encroaching on the bluff setback. Whether the applicant or <br /> the neighborhood finds this set of conditions to be acceptable is not known; further, the <br /> immediate neighbor to the west has not had the opportunity to react to the 25' west side <br /> setback proposal. If this is the direction Planning Commission desires to move toward,�we <br /> should'make an effort to gain input from the neighbor to the immediate west, perhaps if <br /> necessary via notice for a continued hearing at the Council level rather than tabling for a month. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances proposed by the applicant, if <br /> granted in one form or another, will not alter the essential character of the <br /> neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of variances in one form or another? <br /> 4. If variances are granted to the bluff standards, should methods suggested by the <br /> City Engineer be implemented to further protect the bluff area from homeowner <br /> impacts which in the future could cause stabilization issues for the slope? <br /> 5. Planning Commission should specifically determine whether granting variances to allow <br /> 25-foot street and side setbacks is out of character with the immediate neighborhood. <br /> Have the immediately adjacent owners provided input as to the potential side <br /> setback variances affecting them? <br /> ' 6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff recommends the following: <br /> 1. Approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. , <br /> 2. Denial of the bluff setback variance. <br /> 3. Denial of the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone�with structure. <br /> 4. Allowance for limited grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for a walkout door. <br /> 5. Approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear <br /> (street) property line. <br /> 6. Approval of left and right side setbacks of 25 feet to allow for a house/garage footprint <br /> of approximately 2150 s.f. <br />