Laserfiche WebLink
FILE # LA22-000014 <br />April 18, 2022 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br /> <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br />the land is located. The unfilled hole supports the argument for deviation from the strict <br />reading, as this condition is not found in the area. <br />10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />substantial property right of the applicant. The proposed project to elevate the grade for <br />the site to support accessory improvements is secondary to the main use of the site. <br />The property has a home being constructed for use of the property. Staff finds this <br />standard is not met. <br />11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort <br />or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the <br />variance is contrary to the intent of the chapter as the property meeting the primary <br />use of the home on the site. <br />12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but <br />is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Granting the variance is a convenience. <br />The proposed accessory structure improvements are able to be constructed on the <br />existing grade which would meet the city code without the need for any variances. <br /> <br />The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. <br />Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the <br />impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use <br />permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. <br /> <br />Engineer Comments <br />1. Drainage patterns appear to be okay <br />2. Proposed retaining wall will need to be designed by a licensed engineer and reviewed by <br />the City Building official . Wall with footing will exceed 4 feet and appear to be built on <br />top of fill. <br />3. Erosion control plan should be adjusted to provide double silt fence above the wetland <br />boundary. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />To date, no public comments have been received. <br /> <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 property have reasonable use of the site? <br />3. Can the proposed improvements be constructed without a variance? <br />4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br />impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br />5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> <br />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />Staff can support a variance to fill in the hole left by the previous owner to use the 956 contour <br />as the estimated natural grade for the area. Staff is challenged finding practical difficulties <br />necessary to support the raising of the grade 8 feet about existing, ‘natural’ grades. <br /> <br />Planning Staff recommends denial of the average lakeshore setback variance.