09-19-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Zoning File 4fl8^5 .September 14. 1994 Pace 2 Background The applic;ml recenrlv ccwBtructcd a new 10* % 12' storage siwd which was noted by the Impcctions Deparimcm in August 1993. The property owner was advised that such a shed ts not an allowed use and to leave it in its current location would require variances Irvin »lie lakeshore setback and hardcover rcquireir-ni< Mr. Wolfe has acknowledged that the shed is essentially a complete replacement of a shed tnat formerly existed in the same kvation. This is confirmed by the letters Iroin the neighboring property owners However, such total replacement constitutes a violation of the rwn-confomiing use section of the code, which is written with the clear intent that old structuralls unsound buildings near the lakeshore should be removed rather than replaced. (Set Exhibit J). As can be seen from the various items of correspi'ndence. staff has reiterated to the applicaiu that this structure is illegal and must be relocated to a legal kHration on the property, meeting setback and hardcover requirements. Adding to the problem is that the eastern boundary of the property is in question due to lack of detail in the original 1879 plat and due to a legal description that lacks detail In fac*. many surveys of the property have been done through the years, and they arc inconsistent. Tlie most recent survey merely reflects staffs interpretation of what the legal description intended to describe, and which applicant’s surveyor felt had as much justification as any of the previous versions. Problematically, this most recent version, while placing the shed within applicant’s property, results in a significant narrowing of the City s beach right-of-way which could cause significant problems for continued use of the beach. Because of this issue, staff recommends that if Planning Commission finds justification to allow the shed to remain as located, such approval should be conditioned on applicant completing a torrens or 'and registration action to reach a conclusion as u the property line actually is. Statement of Hardsl5i*i Please review applicant’s hardship statement on the application form and his letter of request. Given the relatively clear intent of the municipal code, is there any justification presented that supports the existing shed kK'ation.^ There are other places on the property (see Exhibit H) in which a shed could be legally IiKated. Existing hardcover as calculated bv staff is 24.94% in the 75-250' /.one. There is likely a potential for minor hardcover removals to allow the shed to be relocated without a hardcover variance or w'iih a ve»y minor vari.mce of less than 1 %.