pf_03255 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3.3 Conditions may be attached to a variance that mitigate the impacts on adjoining properties. 3.4 The Mickelson home was constructed in 1963 with modifications in 1992 and 1997. The existing home has a single stall tuck-under garage and the home is built into the slope extending south towards Josephine Road. 3.5 The Mickelson request was forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for review and comment. The DNR responded to the initial location with concern, given its location within the required shoreland setback. Mr. Mickelson met with the DNR to review options for an accessory structure given the parcels limitations. Mr. Mickelson and the DNR have agreed on the current proposal. More specifically, the DNR has concluded that hardship(s) exist on the parcel, limiting Mr. Mickelson's options, and they support the variance request. 3.6 The Comprehensive Plan encourages reconstruction and upgrading of residential structures (and neighborhoods) throughout the community. 3.7 The parcel is odd shaped, has topographical challenges such as steep slopes, mature trees and has no reasonable alternative. The parcel lies adjacent to a large underutilized county road right-of-way that will remain in County ownership. The access to the property extends west from Lexington Avenue some 139 feet and includes a permitted turn-around on county right-of-way to facilitate better access to Lexington Avenue. The parcel slopes up from the waters edge south towards Josephine Road, rising 12 to 14 feet to the south property line. 4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH FINDINGS 4.1 Staff has reviewed the merits of the four variances necessary to allow Mr. Mickelson to proceed with his proposed accessory structure. Staff has concluded that there are hardships present on or effecting the parcel and recommends approval of the request. Staff further suggests the Commission use an outline of the following possible findings to determine whether the Commission finds an "undue hardship" significant enough to recommend approval of a variance by the City Council. a. The hardship situation was not (was) created by the applicant (Mickelson) or existed prior to the applicant. . . b. The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that could justify a variance include ... C. The economic issues that may (in part) justify a variance include... d The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance include.. . PF323255 - RPCA (091300) Page 3 of 4