CC PACKET 07092013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 25, 2013 page 3 23 2. Strict enforcement would cause practical dif because: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code; Both requests -'file property owner wishes to construct the shed to store lawn and garden equipment. Having a shed to store such equipment is a reasonable use. The location proposed by the Applicant is desired in order to preserve the view of the property from the Lake, both for the Applicant and adjacent property owners. In addition, locating the shed in the proposed location prevents the Applicant from having to do any grading in the rear yard. Given that the R-1 A section of the Zoning Code mentions that regulations different from other single family districts may be necessary in order to preserve the lake as a natural amenity, staff finds the request reasonable. If the City Council agrees that the proposed shed location is reasonable for the reasons stated above, the proposed location would appear to be the most logical. "Che Applicant has limited space between the home and the side lot line. In order to meet the required setback from the side property line, the shed must encroach the required setback from the home. Additionally, the proposed location provides an increased level of screening from the road and adjacent property owners. Criteria met. b. The plight gJ'the property owner is dire to circimistances iniique to the property not created by the property owner; Side yard -The regulations pertaining to accessory structures in the Zoning Code apply to all zoning districts. However, the Zoning Code recognizes the uniqueness of the R -I A District in that different requirements from other single-family districts may be called for to preserve the lakeshore. While the Code does not make specific mention of accessory structures being permitted in side yards in the R -IA district, it is staffs belief that the intent of the 'Zoning Code is to preserve the lake (and views of the lake) where it is reasonable. The property owner is attempting to prevent potential negative impacts to the lake by avoiding grading and site lines. The property owner is not responsible for the existing topography of the rear yard. Criteria met. Setback- If the City Council agrees that locating the shed in the side yard makes the most sense in order to preserve the site lines and grading closer to the lakeshore, the proposed location appears to be the most logical given that it is well screened from the street and adjacent property. The Applicant has limited space on the southwest side of the home and in order to meet the side yard setback, the shed must encroach into the required setback from the principal structure by two and one half feet. Staff believes that meeting the side yard setback is a priority over the setback from the principal structure given that locating the shed closer to the side property line could impact the adjacent property. In addition, the measurement from the principal structure is from the eave of the roof. The shed is actually four feet from the side of the home. Criteria met. c. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Both requests -The proposed shed will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed shed is only seven feet by seven feet and is positioned at a lower grade and surrounded by vegetation so that it is well screened from the street and adjacent property. Storage sheds similar to the one proposed by the Applicant are common among other single-family homes throughout the City. Staff finds that the essential character of the locality will not be changed. Criteria met. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Side yard- The reason the Applicant is proposing the shed in the side yard is to preserve the site lines and grading adjacent to the lake to the extent possible. Not only will