Laserfiche WebLink
area standards, many of which were adopted in 1975. Because of this, when a lot is <br />proposed to be rebuilt and tlie lot doesn’t meet the area or width requirement a variance is <br />required. Planning Department and staff continually recommend approval of these <br />variances as no existing lot can be rendered un-buildable. The amendment allows the <br />Planning Director to give administrative approval so long as speciF.ed conditions can be <br />met, which are listed in the language attached (Exhibit B). <br />Section 78-281 through 78-300 <br />The amendment is merely deletion of duplicate language which cuiTently exists within <br />the Shoreland Ordinance. <br />Section 78-1279 (6) <br />This amendment allows administrative approval for certain average lakeshore setback <br />variance requests. The average lakeshore setback requirement exists merely to protect <br />neighboring property’s views to the lake. Under cument practice, any time a property <br />camiot meet the average lakeshore setback, a variance is required regardless of the views. <br />The Plamiing Commission often approves these variances when it is clear no views are <br />obstructed, such as properties Utat sit on a point or have drastically changing topography. <br />The amendment allows the Planning Director to give administrative approval so long as it <br />is evident no views will be obstructed. The Planning Director will continue to have the <br />authority and discretion to require that any of these applications go before the Plamiing <br />Commission and Council if any gray area exists. <br />Section 78-1432 <br />The amendment establishes specific language to allow conforming accessory buildings to <br />remain on a lot when the principal structure is being rebuilt. Currently, staff has required <br />that these buildings be removed due to current language of 78-1432 which allows <br />accessory buildings only after a principal building has been constructed. The amendment <br />requires an agreement between the City and property owner to ensure the accessory <br />building will not remain absent a principal stmeture and also provides authority for the <br />removal of the accessory building should the agreement be broken. <br />Issues for Coosideratioo <br />1. Is the Planning Commission comfortable allowing these specific administrative <br />approvals? <br />2. Are there any other changes, issues or concerns with these amendments? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Sections 78-1405, 78-72, 78-282- <br />300, 78-1279 (6). 78-1432.