02-18-2020 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Date Application Received: 01/10/2020 Date Application Considered as Complete:01/23/2020 'W. j 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/23/2020 y' To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members 11104,N.,Dustin Rief, City Administrator ~ 4kEsi-10 From: Melanie Curtis, Planner IY1GG Date: 18 February 2020 Subject: #LA20-000005, Gordon James Construction o/b/o David & Lynn Gutermuth 2665 Casco Point Road • After-the-Fact Variances • Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting after-the-fact lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and 75-foot hardcover variances. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the request for after-the-fact approval of hardcover and setback variances. Background A variance for a new home (File#17-3965)was granted in 2017, and a building permit consistent with the approvals was issued in January 2018. In October 2019,the builder submitted an as-built survey and requested a final Certificate of Occupancy. Upon inspection it was noted that unpermitted changes were made to the existing boathouse and a new deck had been installed replacing a deck shown as to be removed to offset hardcover. The deck was not shown on the submitted as-built survey. The boathouse is situated 16.5 feet from the ordinary high water level and is entirely within the average lakeshore setback. It is considered to be a legal non-conforming building. It can be rebuilt in-kind, but expansions to the footprint and/or volume of the building are not permitted without variance(s). Additionally,the new±240 square foot lakeside deck was not rebuilt in-kind and not accounted for in the hardcover calculations;the hardcover now exceeds the approved level. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information:The applicant has provided a narrative and supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that the expansions to the building are not supported by unique practical difficulties inherent to the land.The property owner has a right to maintain and even rebuild the existing building, however the expansions are cosmetic in nature (expansion of the roof gable) and are a convenience to the applicant;the building location did not change.