Laserfiche WebLink
Ressler commented it is difficult to grant a variance to that when the neighbors are supportive of it and it <br />is even more difficult when the neighbors are opposed to it. Ressler commented the Planning <br />Commission has to look at it now without the house being there. <br />Thiesse stated the situation with the average lakeshore setback now was created by the owner because <br />they combined the two pieces of property. <br />Vogstrom stated in their view there is a point and that should be taken into consideration. Vogstrom <br />stated by attempting to accommodate the neighbors, new issues have been created. <br />Thiesse stated in his view the situation was created because the two lots were combined. <br />Erickson stated if variances are granted now before a house is built and then later somebody builds a <br />house on the lot, it could lead to more variances down the road. <br />Curtis noted a new lot should have a conforming building envelope. <br />Thiesse suggested the developer do more work on creating a conforming building envelope. <br />Curtis stated this is essentially a subdivision to create this lot and that she is not sure what the precedent is <br />for granting an average lakeshore variance for the house at the same a new lot is being created. Curtis <br />stated she does not believe that is typically done. <br />Vogstrom indicated they could some do modifications but that it was his understanding it could not go <br />beyond what was previously there. <br />Curtis asked if they would be requesting the average lakeshore setback for what is proposed on the plan. <br />Vogstrom indicated he would be. Vogstrom stated he would like to meet with everybody on site so they <br />can understand what everyone's sightlines are. <br />Ressler stated they are looking at the fundamentals of the setback and it is an encroachment on the <br />setback, which is something that has to be taken into consideration. Ressler suggested the developer try <br />to be more conforming and think of ways he can soften the encroachment. <br />Curtis suggested they stake the house on the site so the Commissioners and neighbors can view it. Curtis <br />noted the Planning Commission cannot meet on site with the developer as a group. <br />Libby requested he do a clear survey with the setback markers on there. <br />Barnhart suggested he contact Staff when the work is done so they can take pictures and notify the <br />Planning Commissioners. <br />Thiesse asked if Mr. Hueler's view was blocked by the previous house. <br />Hueler indicated it was a one-story house but that the porch did extend past the 75 -foot setback. Hueler <br />noted the previous house and foundation is gone, which has improved their view, and that they would like <br />to keep it. <br />Eric Vogstrom noted the trees block part of his view. <br />Ressler commented it would be great if they could soften it a bit and show some flexibility. <br />Thiesse stated Item No. 8 reads that Staff will need to confirm whether or not Lot 2 meets the width <br />requirement at the OHWL and at the 75 -foot setback. Thiesse noted Staff will need to have that <br />information. <br />