February 7, 2006 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. The property can be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance requested; and the scale/mass of the structure enlargements proposed exceeds that which is considered reasonable for the lake -front location. 2. The extent of the requested variance does not result from circumstances unique to property even though the existing principal structures were constructed prior to adoption of Shoreland Regulations. While a variance of some degree may be required for enlargement and renovation of the existing structures and could be supported on this basis - the specific circumstances of the requested variance were primarily created by the applicant to accommodate a significant increase in the scale/mass of the structures. 3. Granting of the requested variance will change the essential character of the neighborhood by the resulting structure appearing out of scale with those existing in the immediate neighborhood, and significantly changing the appearance of the site/neighborhood as viewed from Olson Lake by the introduction of a 2 story structure where single story structures now predominate. While some degree of OHW setback variance may be required to accomplish some degree of enlargement and necessary renovation of the existing structure, staff suggests (as we have repeatedly in prior similar cases) that there should be a limit on the scale of such lake -side structure enlargements related to the visual impact as viewed from the lake. This variance request is not only an issue of additional horizontal encroachment to the OHW, but significant vertical encroachment as well. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Motion recommending to the City Council the disposition of this variance application. Should the Commission concur with the staff's observations and suggested Findings, the Motion should be to recommend denial and include those Findings as stated above or as modified by the Commission. Should the Commission not concur with the Staff in this matter, the Findings must be modified accordingly by the maker of the Motion to recommend approval. As always, the option remains for the applicant to request the Commission table the application and request waiver of the City's 60 day review period. That request by the applicant must be in writi d ad ess both the bling and the waiver of the 60 day review period. r , /`� -. CharlesE.- Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Valley Branch Review Letter 3. DNR Review Comments (As Available) 4. Applicant's Documentation