Laserfiche WebLink
)r- <br />To;Planning Commission <br />From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning 7\dmi ni st rator <br />Date:May 15, 1985 <br />Subject: #914 Richard C. Kauffmnnn, 2696 Ethel Avenue - Variance <br />Zoning District - LR-JC - 1/2 Acre or 21,780 s.f. minimum lot area <br />Total Area of Ix)t = 29,343 s.f. <br />Lot Width at I^kv-sn/re = 98'.35 <br />Lot Width at Proposed Building Site = 108' <br />Application - Variance to average lakeshore setback line of approximately <br />32' for proposed new residence. <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Exhibit C <br />Exhibit D <br />Exhibit E <br />Exhibit F <br />Exhibit G <br />Application <br />Property Owners List <br />Plat Map <br />Lot Line Rearrangement <br />Pulver Letter <br />Kearns Letter <br />Survey/Site Plan <br />The applicant seeks a variance to the average lakeshore setback line <br />for construction of new residence. The lot has an existing residence that <br />is currently occupied by relatives of the applicant. The application shows <br />the current owner to be Tom Schmitz. Planning Commission approved a lot <br />line rearrangement for the previous owner. Jack Hamlett, in 1984. <br />The applicant has asked that the present structure rem.ain in use <br />during const:ucticn. The City has allowed in the past the use of an <br />existing structure by the resident/owner during a reconstruction period. <br />Pending final resolution of the placement of tlie new house. Planning <br />Commission should bo prepared to m.akc recommendation concerning use of <br />existing structure. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 7, Council approval via <br />a variance to this section of the code will be required. <br />The proposed house extends approximately 32 feet beyond the average <br />Setback line. The applicant contends the unique roof design and varied <br />elevations of the roof will not create viewing problems for adjacent home <br />owners. The elevations of the window heights of tne adjacent homes have <br />been designated on the survey but not the various roof elevations of the <br />proposed structure. The applicant has advised that he will stake the <br />actual height of the pertinent roof sections on the site for your in­ <br />spection. A model of the house will be left on the site for your use. An <br />insepetionof this site will be a must for all members if you arc to relate <br />to applicants claim that the unique roof design and final roof elevations <br />will not crot'iie "any blockage of lake view of adjacent property o»ners". <br />Please review Exhil>its E t, F, the adjacent property owners both claim <br />that their views wi1 1 be blocked and tln'ir property values diminished. The <br />applicMht ha<l advised nie that he would review the plans w'ith th*‘ adjacent