Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#17-3971 <br /> 16 Oct 2017 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> personal access to the lake, but vehicular access,with its inherent higher intensity and potential for <br /> soil compaction and erosion,is not protected. The conditions do apply to neighboring properties. <br /> This criterion is not met. <br /> 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial <br /> property right of the applicant.The current,pre-lot line rearrangement orientation of the property <br /> offers a number of options for conforming development.The owners currently enjoy this property <br /> right,and their requested lot line adjustment actions may impact that right.This criterion is not <br /> met. <br /> 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or <br /> in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.Approval of the variance to construct a <br /> home,with greater mass than the previous home, up to 52 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore <br /> setback,intensifies the impact to neighbors and appears to be contrary to the intent of the zoning <br /> code. <br /> 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary <br /> to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. It appears the purpose for granting the requested variances <br /> would be for the convenience to the applicants.This criterion is not met. <br /> The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions <br /> imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the <br /> variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district <br /> where such land is located. <br /> Practical Difficulties Statement <br /> Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B,and should be <br /> asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Practical Difficulties Analysis <br /> The applicant's preceding variance request on the October agenda (File#17-3947)which lays the groundwork <br /> for the administrative lot line rearrangement, results in a restriction of the available building envelope for the <br /> new home.As(currently) previously configured the property had ample opportunity for a new residence to <br /> meet the required average lakeshore setback. <br /> The applicant is proposing a new home which will increase the mass of the structure on the property within <br /> the average lakeshore setback. They are also proposing to increase the mass (from the pre-existing home)on <br /> the east side, possibly further impacting the property owner to the east. The limited building area on the <br /> property after the lot line rearrangement results in the applicant creating existing conditions which do not <br /> necessarily constitute a practical difficulty supporting the variances. <br /> Additionally,the necessity for the work proposed within the 75-foot setback area to install retaining walls and <br /> create a driving path for ATVs is partially self-created.The tree removal on the lake slope and the grading were <br /> done without City oversight.The applicant was directed to provide a detailed restoration plan, some of which <br /> may be addressed on the landscape plan, however the proposed lakeshore retaining walls are not supported <br /> by practical difficulty. <br /> Public Comments <br /> Comments were received primarily pertaining to and attached to File#17-3947. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a <br /> reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />