06-12-2023 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA23-000020 May 15, 2023 Page 4 of 5 property in relation to the neighboring homes is unique. The neighbor to the north is screened by a well-established tree line along the property line and the neighbor to the south’s home viewshed is oriented away from the subject property line. This criterion is met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The request is specific to this property as it relates to an existing nonconforming deck. This criterion is met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The proposed expansion of the nonconforming deck preserves the property owner’s right to enjoy the lakeyard. The minor expansion does not negatively impact the neighboring properties or their views of the lake. This criterion is met. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals of the community. This criterion is met. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances allow for the construction of an expanded deck in order for it to be used and enjoyed by the current property owners. This criterion is met. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Public Comments The applicant has provided acknowledgement forms from the neighboring properties. However, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alt er the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The expanded deck should not impact the views of the lake enjoyed by the neighboring properties due to the position of the property and existing well-established vegetation. The expanded deck will allow the current property owner to use and enjoy the lakeside deck without negatively impacting the surrounding properties. Staff is supportive of the requested average lakeshore setback variance.