Laserfiche WebLink
• FILE#16-3805 <br /> February 12,2016 <br /> Page 5 of 5 <br /> Analysis <br /> In the opinion of staff, the key determinants as to whether granting the variances is reasonable <br /> lies in whether the back lot standards are critical in maintaining compatibility with the <br /> surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, is there a potential conflict related to the functional rear <br /> yard of the applicanYs property abutting the functianal front yard of the adjacent residence at <br /> 2445 North 5hore Drive. Does the existing shared driveway which extends past the end of the <br /> Outlot into applicants' iot before it splits off to serve 2445, ha�e any real impact on the adjacent <br /> home at 2445? <br /> An additional factor to consider is that 2445 as a result of the 1995 re-plat is not really a front lot, <br /> as it extends full-length from North Shore Drive ta the Lake, albeit unusually narrow at the <br /> shoreline. TFiis is a result of the unique configuration that existed before the 1995 re-platting. <br /> The focational relationship between the homes at 2445 and 2455 has been established and in <br /> place for more nearly 40 years. To add tfl the discussion, nate that the applicant also owns the <br /> property at 2445 and has recently had that resicience demolished. <br /> Given the history of how the property and adjacent property have evolved, a persuasive <br /> argument can be made in favor of granting the variances. The front-lot/back-lot relationship <br /> established by application of the zoning code during the 1995 re-plat has technical flaws. The <br /> existing shared driveway configuration has not caused any of the potential conflicts envisioned <br /> by the ordinance rationale. pue to the shape of the lots, the actual separation between the <br /> homes at 2445 and 2455 exceeds 200 feet, far greater than the 125' separation that would be <br /> required in a standard front/back lot configuration in the 2-acre zone. <br /> 1t should be noted that the detached barn structure northwest of the existing residence meets <br /> the required 10' side setback for an accessary structure. <br /> Additionally, the applicants are considering future additions to the existing residence. Any <br /> additions proposed will have to meet the average lakeshore setback of 84' as established by the <br /> setback of the neighboring residence to the immediate west, since the adjacent lakeshore horne <br /> to the immediate east has been demolished. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Cammission find that that the praperty owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variance requested is justified, are <br /> the�e any negative impacts created by granting the variance that need to be <br /> m itigated? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application7 <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. If Planning Commission determines that <br /> t�e practical difficulties test is met and the requested variance is justified, then a <br /> recommendation for approval would be in order. <br />