10-16-2017 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

f ~ FILE#17-3947 October 16 2017 Page 6 of 7 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Practical difficulties have not been identified which meet any of the practical difficulty criteria; it appears the purpose for granting the requested variances would be solely for the convenience to the applicants.This criterion is not met. In summary, of the 14 standards necessary for granting a variance 9 were not met, and 3 were not applicable. The Commission could table action and recommend the applicant revise their plan and/or practical difficulty statement to better reflect City code and standards. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Issues for Discussion: 1. The applicant has proposed a lot configuration that does not conform to city requirements in the following ways: a. As a new Back Lot: i. Access Drive Outlot:30-foot required. ii. Nonconforming 2nd back lot creation—#of back lots,setbacks,size and width. b. As a Lot Line Rearrangement: i. Access Road Outlot: 50-foot outlot required (triggered by the addition of the 3`d property served). ii. Paved width of roadway (24 Foot minimum) +cul-de-sac required iii. 2710 Pence width variance. The creation of new, non-conforming situations only serves immediate convenience. Council agendas are frequently populated by variance applications attempting to manage today's building and living styles into lot configurations intended for seasonal cabins and resorts. In response to concerns of traffic, noise, massing, and lake impacts,the city established regulations. Does the proposal,while not meeting the prescribed rules of the city code address the concerns appropriately? 2. Is the retention of a gate serving three lots appropriate? 3. The original plan reflected a proposed circular turnaround on the plans which was proposed to be a private improvement on one or both of the lots 2709 Walters Port and 2710 Pence. Fire Marshal James Van Eyll reviewed the plan showing the circular drive and felt that generally the plan would meet the fire department's access needs.The circular drive is no longer proposed; the applicant should clarify the plan. Planning Commission should direct the applicant regarding the proposed private road outlot width and the lack of a cul-de-sac or circular driveway turnaround. 4. The private driveway is shown to connect with Walters Port and will be gated. Planning Commission should ask for clarification regarding the Walters Port connection.