Laserfiche WebLink
LA23-000042 <br />August 21, 2023 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br />property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions of the property <br />include the substandard lot size, substandard lot width, topography, and location of <br />existing structures. Many properties in the same neighborhood have similar conditions <br />and must adhere to the required bluff setback. This criterion is not met. <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br />the land is located. There are no special conditions that are unique to the property. This <br />criterion is not met. <br />10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />substantial property right of the applicant. The existing home on the property has an <br />existing deck and at -grade patio. The expansion of the deck is not necessary for the <br />preservation and enjoyment 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 <br />or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the <br />requested variances would be contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. This <br />criterion is not met. <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. The setback variance to construct <br />within a bluff impact zone is not necessary. The property currently has outdoor space <br />that can be used. There are not practical difficulties that support the expansion of the <br />current deck and patio. The requested variance seems to be a convenience to the <br />applicant. This criterion is not met. <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 />Engineer Comments <br />The City Engineer has not reviewed the proposed plan. A thorough review will be conducted at <br />the time of building permit. <br />Public Comments <br />No public comments have been received related to this application. <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 Commission find the removal of the nonconforming lakeside deck and large <br />patio to offset the expansion of the existing deck and patio within the bluff impact <br />zone? <br />3. The Commission should discuss if the property owner has reasonable use of the property. <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />The proposal of expanding the existing deck and patio on the west side of the home is not <br />supported by staff due to the sensitive nature of the bluff. The proposal decreases the setback <br />of the deck to the top of bluff from 10 feet to 8 feet. The entire project will disturb land and soil <br />