Laserfiche WebLink
Oakden noted that was one of the questions outlined in Staff report. The current house does encroach into <br />the average lakeshore setback, so it is nonconforming as it exists today, and the proposal is requesting to <br />be closer to the lake. The applicant is looking to be more in line with the two other nearby residences, <br />and without an average lakeshore setback variance, this lot would be almost unbuildable. The question is <br />whether the Planning Commission is in favor of the degree to which is being proposed. <br />McCutcheon asked what the side setbacks are. <br />Oakden indicated the property is allowed a 7.8 -foot setback and to the south they are proposing an 8 -foot <br />setback and to the north they are proposing a 12.5 -foot setback. <br />McCutcheon commented drainage is always a concern when the houses are that close, but that will be <br />dealt with at the time of building permit. <br />Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. <br />There were no public comments relating to this application. <br />Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. <br />Libby commented since there is not that much difference between the existing footprint and what is being <br />proposed on the lakeshore side, this is something that would be worthy of the Planning Commission's <br />consideration and that he would like to hear further discussion. The lakeshore setback is the primary <br />concern due to the possibility of setting a precedent, but under the circumstances, the proposal is not that <br />much more than what currently exists. Libby stated if you look at the alignment for the average lakeshore <br />setback without the house to the north that is further set back, the line would be in a different location. <br />Erickson stated his sense of the average lakeshore setback is to regulate the situation where houses are at <br />similar setbacks. The rules create an issue when there are flag lots and the main house is located quite a <br />bit back from the other homes in the area. A good item to discuss at some point is the City's future <br />treatment of flag lots and whether something can be done with that ordinance to deal with this type of <br />situation. Erickson stated at the present time he would support the application. <br />McCucheon stated common sense -wise, the new house aligns with the other neighbors and will not be <br />extending into the lake setback any more than the neighbors are, so he would support it. <br />Bollis commented he likes the fact the hardcover is being reduced. The intent of the lakeshore setback <br />ordinance is to protect the view shed and it does not appear the view shed would be any different for the <br />house to the north, so he would be in favor of it. <br />Gettman indicated he has no concerns with the application. <br />Ressler asked if structural coverage is being increased. <br />Oakden indicated it is but that it will be within the allowable amount. The current hardcover is at 30.5 <br />percent and they are proposing to decrease it to 29.5 percent, but it is still over the allowable 25 percent. <br />Ressler stated it does make sense, but the difficulty he is having is regulating under the current rules. It <br />looks like there is further encroachment to the neighboring property, which is an issue. The neighbor's <br />property will not be able to build that close since their lot is too close. Ressler stated in his view the <br />