Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #983 <br />October 10, 1985 <br />Page 2 <br />4. Average Setback <br />Proposed garage extends 23* into average lakeshore setback zone - <br />potentially has a major impact on views for neighbor to the east. <br />5. The proposed garage would require fill in the 0-75* setback area <br />and appears to include filling below the 931.5 elevation (flood <br />plain). Depth of fill would appear to range from 0* to 5', mainly to <br />slope away from the garage foundation. Technically, the filling <br />requires a conditional use permit review, and fill below 931.5* re­ <br />quires MCWD review and approval. <br />6. The proposed garage is "structure" within the 0-75 setback area, <br />requiring a variance since no structure is allowed (lakeshore setback <br />variance also, requesting 30* rather than 75'). <br />7. Front Setback <br />Required = 30* <br />Existing = 25* from assumed R.O.W. line <br />== 39* from edge of pavement <br />Proposed = same as existing <br />Also, note deck on road side of house; if it is at main floor level, <br />the deck is a non-encroachment on the yard; but might technically <br />encroach on the southerly average lakeshore setback. <br />The magnitude of the requested variances suggests that perhaps a plan <br />incorporating a home with attached garage, built higher rather than out­ <br />ward, would be more appropriate for this property. For comparison, note <br />the following variances which were granted to Lou Fegers in remodeling his <br />home next door; <br />0-75* Hardcover (north) <br />75-250* Hardcover <br />Average Setback <br />Lakeshore Setback <br />Granted <br />Fegers <br />5.0% <br />56.8% <br />8* <br />63* <br />Requested <br />Pemberton <br />33.2% <br />51.0% <br />23* <br />30* <br />Normal <br />Limit <br />0% <br />25% <br />no encroachment <br />75* min. <br />Although the applicant has not really identified any hardships to the <br />property, the obvious "hardship" property condition is the extremely <br />limited size of the lot and the proximity of the shoreline. There are no <br />other apparent unusual conditions; in fact, the lot is typical of small <br />lakeshore lots in this neighborhood in which small cabins have been re­ <br />placed by year-round residences. <br />Staff would recommend that Planning Commission review the requested <br />variances, and determine whether there is justification to grant them. You <br />may wish to table if the applicant is interested in revising the proposal <br />so that less extensive variances are required. <br />h f?'-1C