Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA22-000064 <br />June 20, 2023 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />of the existing structures on the lot are unique conditions to this specific property. This criterion <br />is met. <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is <br />located. While the surrounding properties are similar in size, the shape of the lot and location of <br />the existing structures on the property are unique to the subject property. This criterion is met. <br />10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial <br />property right of the applicant. The existing home does not have a compliant building envelope <br />and therefore any addition requires multiple variances. However, there is an existing home <br />allowing for reasonable use of the property. This criterion is not met. <br />11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, <br />or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances <br />may adversely impact the lake views of the neighboring property owner as the proposed <br />addition is approximately 12 feet taller than the existing roofline and creating a new vertical <br />encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. This criterion is not met. <br />12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br />necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances for the construction of a two-story <br />addition with a rooftop terrace above the second story appear to serve more of a convenience <br />than a necessity. Additionally, the plans depict exterior doors that would require additional <br />hardcover within the 75' lakeyard setback. This criterion is not met. <br />The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any <br />conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact <br />created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter <br />in the district where such land is located. <br />Public Comments <br />The applicant has provided acknowledgement forms from the neighbors found in Exhibit G. No other <br />public comment has been received. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property <br />in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential <br />character of the neighborhood? <br />3. Does the Planning Commission find the addition's height is reasonable? <br />4. The Planning Commission should request additional information from the applicant regarding <br />the hardcover plans within the 75' lakeyard. <br />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Staff recommends denial of the application as applied. Staff is concerned with: <br />1. The overall height of the addition as it is a new vertical encroachment in the average <br />lakeshore setback that may impact lake views. <br />The proposed hardcover within the 75 -foot setback must be clarified. The plans indicate <br />exterior doors on the addition that potentially require additional hardcover within the 75' <br />lakeyard setback that is not included in the submitted material. <br />