Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA24-000016 <br />April 15, 2024 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property <br />or immediately adjoining property. The substandard lot size, substandard lot width, and existing <br />conditions of the property are unique conditions to this specific property. This criterion is met. <br /> <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 location of the existing <br />structures on the property are unique to the subject property. This criterion is met. <br /> <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 on the property currently has a two-car <br />garage. While the existing garage may be smaller than desirable, it currently usable. The <br />proposal also includes a second story screened in porch and front porch addition that are not <br />necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property. The increase in hardcover, <br />expansions within the lake setback and the inability to meet the average lakeshore setback is <br />not supported by practical difficulties. This criterion is not met. <br /> <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 />would be contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. This criterion is not met. <br /> <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. There are not practical difficulties that support the <br />application as proposed. The requested variances for a new garage addition with a second story <br />screened in porch and a new front porch addition seem to be above and beyond what is needed <br />to resolve the constraints of the property today. The requested variances seem to be a <br />convenience to the applicant as they currently have reasonable use of the parcel with the <br />existing single-family home. This criterion is not met. <br /> <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 /> <br />Public Comments <br />The neighboring property owner at 3335 Crystal Bay Road has submitted a letter of concern which is <br />included as Exhibit H. The neighbor explains concerns regarding drainage and lake views. <br /> <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 Commission should discuss the increase in hardcover within the 75-foot setback. <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 /> <br />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />Planning staff recommends denial of the requested variances as applied. <br /> <br />Staff understands the constraints of the substandard lot and existing conditions. However, the plan would <br />need to be modified in order to gain staff’s support. The applicant should explore the possibility of an <br />111