11925 SILVER LAKE DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

. . . � i � , , � � A. Finding: City zoning code defines "Gross Floor Area Rat1o" as I the sum of all the floors of a building divided by the lot area. � The City feele a more reasonable way to limit lot coverage xould i I be to conaider the Pootprint of the building ae the ba�is tor i figuring gross floor area ratio since Lhere is alroady a height 1lmitatlon that controls the n�bar of floor�. In the pa�t� the I i groas floor area ratio has not been uniformly enPorced� however� th� City Peels LhaL rather than disregarding the code it is more appropriate to considei• applications for variance un an i individual basis until the zoning code is changed. In this case the Applicant is proposing a two-story house and Lk�a � i actual footyrint of the strueture (1,�53 sq. Ft.) xill cover only � 21} oP the 8�550 sq. ft. lot. Conclusion: The variance as proposed. by the Applicant appears to I be a reasonable request. ; H. Findlnas The area tiras annexed to the City Nov. 4� 1g8y, and I construction prior to that time did not have to meet the development standards for permitted uses in the flood Pringe. I � I i Conclusion: The construction xould be consistent xith other I� �ingle family structures around the lake. 2. That such variance ia necessary for the preservation and en�oyment oP I I i a substantial property right of the appellant possessed by the owners i � li of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. I A. Finding: The Doard of Ad ustment has � i .� granted other requesta for , � I variance from grose floor area ratio and the CiLy will continue � � to reco�end doing so until the zoning code is changed. IConclusion: The variance would allow a property right posseseed i by other oWners. , B. Finding: Other properties around the lake hava not had to fill j above the regulatory flood elevation, and the Federal Flood Snsurance Regulationa require only that construction be at the I regulatory flood protection elavation and not above. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the propoaed site plan. � I I i Concluaion: The variance would a11oW a property right posaessed by others in this vicinity. , I � � 3• That the authorization of sueh variance aill not be materially j ;j detrimental to the publie welfare or in�urious to property in the ' vicinity or zone in Which the property is located. i � A. Finding: The actual lot coverage is .27 and the zoning code 1 �i limits the height of the structure to 30 feet so there does not ! appear that there aould be any adverse affeet on other property. i � Other City Departments have no ob�ection to the varianee request, j however, the Publie Works Dept. requires dedication of � right-of-way along Silver Lake Road. I I Conelusion: This variance would not be in�urious to other iproperty in the vicinity and zone. i � B. Findln[t: If the property were filled to txo feet above the ; i regulatory flood protection elevation it would have an adverse affect on the existing single family structure to the north since I it aould be elevated a considerabla amounc above that • 9tructure. There xould also be less potential to impact any I views at the lower elevation. � �� A 255 unit apartment complex is proposed for the property to the 1 south and it does not appear that this variance xould affect that i pro,ject. � _Z_ �