PL PACKET 12172018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 26, 2018 Page 2 Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Chair Papatola noted the applicant is a 1 member of the Planning Commission and he has recused himself from all discussion on this 2 matter. 3 4 City Planner Molly Just reviewed the applicant proposes to add an accessory building, swimming 5 pool and pool mechanical equipment in the rear yard. The proposal requires approval of 6 variances from the 75-foot required rear yard. For lots on Silver Lake, the rear yard is measured 7 from the ordinary high-water elevation for Silver Lake, which is 934 feet. The existing home 8 meets this setback. The following variances are proposed. 9 10 1. A 65-foot variance for an accessory building to be located no closer than 10 feet to 11 the ordinary high-water elevation of Silver Lake. 12 2. A 39-foot variance for a swimming pool to be located no closer than 36 feet to the 13 ordinary high-water elevation of Silver Lake. A 24-foot variance for pool mechanical 14 equipment to be located no closer than 51 feet to the ordinary high-water elevation. 15 16 Ms. Just noted several other homes with lake frontage on Silver Lake have accessory buildings in 17 the rear yard setback. There are two other swimming pools in rear yards along Silver Lake. Both 18 were approved prior to the current ordinance requirement for a 75-foot setback. Staff has 19 reviewed for height, side/front yard setback, impervious surface and the requests appear to meet 20 all other code standards. Maps of the property were provided for the Commission to review and 21 applicable codes were reviewed. Ms. Just read the preamble for the lakeshore district. There have 22 been no variance requests since the ordinance was updated. 23 24 The criteria for variance approval were reviewed by Ms. Just. 25 26 1. The subject matter is within the scope of this section. – Criterion met for accessory building 27 and for pool/mechanical equipment. 28 2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: 29 a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by 30 the zoning code. Criterion met for accessory building and not met for 31 pool/mechanical equipment. 32 b. The circumstances are unique to the property and not created by the applicant. 33 Criterion met for accessory building and for pool/mechanical equipment. 34 c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Criterion 35 met for accessory building and not met for pool/mechanical equipment. 36 d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Criterion 37 met for accessory building and for pool/mechanical equipment. 38 3. Consistency with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. Criterion met for the accessory 39 building and for pool/mechanical equipment. 40 4. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. Criterion 41 met for accessory building and not met for pool/mechanical equipment. 42 43 Ms. Alisa Bartel, 4021 Silver Lake Terrace, NE, the applicant, thanked the Commission for their 44 consideration. She noted the reason they are asking for an accessory building is due to the steep 45 nature of their property. They climb three stories to retrieve items for their children to use in the 46