Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> • FILE#15-3738 <br /> 14 May 2095 <br /> Page 5 of 5 <br /> removed. The addition proposed on tt�e east side results in a new 14' x 23' portian of the hame <br /> completely within the 100 foot lake setback. Due to the elevation change ftom the lake level t4 <br /> the home le�et the two additions to the home may not be visually apparent when viewed ftom <br /> the lake. Further, it does not appear that the adjacent property owners will be adversely <br /> impacted by the two additions to the home. Staff finds that there are special cond itions relating <br /> ta the existing home and property which support granting the requested lake setback and <br /> average lakeshore setback variances for the additions. <br /> The proposed pool will be located within the average lakeshore setback, within the 100-foot <br /> structure setback and almost entirely within the 75-foot zone where no hardcover or structure <br /> is permitted. Staff finds that although the visual impacts af the pool will be minimal from the <br /> lake and from adjacent properties,the setback and hardcover variances would serve merely as a <br /> convenience to the owners as there are satisfactory alterna#ive locations where such an amenity <br /> could be located an the property. The granting of variances to permit a pool to be located 60 <br /> feet from the OWHL of Long Lake is not consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan nor <br /> would it be in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Code. Based on th� information provided it <br /> does not appear tfi�at the applicant has proven practical difficulties which support the granting of <br /> setback and hardcovervariances to construct the pool as proposed. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Dves the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reas�nable manner which is not permitted by an �fficial control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighbarhood? <br /> 3. Does#he Commission find it necessary to impase conditians in orcier to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> The Planning Commission should evaluate the practical difficulty criteria against the requested <br /> variances and make a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Staff recommends <br /> approval of the variances to allow construction of the eastern addition, and the proposed <br /> modifications to the portion of the home on the west. Staff recommends denial of setback and <br /> hardcaver variances relating to the pool. <br />