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