Laserfiche WebLink
>rder <br />►pli- <br />wish <br />0-75* <br />lard- <br />able <br />posed <br />ion 3 <br />\ <br />no <br />tcroechnenl <br />5* deck <br />>ortion of <br />iouse* not! <br />luch fill <br />none <br />Zoning File #983 <br />November 13, 1985 <br />Page 2 <br />* Note that since Fegers does not own lakeshore on the south side of <br />County Road 51, the south "average setback" necessarily stems from the <br />required 30' setback and the relative conformity with the neighboring <br />residences, all of which are less than 30' from the R.O.W* line. <br />^ ' <br />In reviewing the options, note that Options 1 and 2 make ust-. fel <br />attached garage but vary the setbacks to the west lot line to pr''?%ide <br />greater backup area. Option 3 uses a tuck-under garage exiting to the <br />east, requiring raising the main floor about 5' and requiring a 4| setback <br />to the west line, but does reduce the 0-75' hardcover needed. Virtually <br />all the proposals show a deck on the front side which will be closer to the <br />road than the adjacent houses, and the proposals all show the house (and <br />adjacent houses) less than the required 30' to the right-of-way line. In <br />each proposal, the applicant would request that the deck be considered as <br />non—hardcover; the Council has not granted this status in the past for <br />decks over 18" off the ground such as proposed in Option 3. Note also the <br />history of this property. A Mr. Perry Gobel owned 3570 and 3580 North <br />Shore Drive prior to 1973. Prior to Gobel's ownership. Lot 6 (3570) and <br />Lot 7 (3580) had been combined for tax purposes, and Gobel bought the two <br />as "a house and guest house". In 1973 Gobel sold the guest house (3580) <br />and realized they were considered one property. He went before the <br />Council, and was allowed to re-separate the two lots, in order to cons^- <br />mate the sale. Note that virtually no record of the actual review <br />discussions appear in the minutes. <br />The consequences of that action were manifested in the variance <br />application referred to by Corririssioner McDonald at your October meeting. <br />She noted this property had been denied variances for a small addition in <br />1976. Staff has located the documentation for this variance application, <br />and it is attached in the Exhibits. Note that the Council at that time did <br />recommend that the applicant submit a revised proposal to build "up" in­ <br />stead of "out". No garage was apparent in the plans at that time. The <br />Pemberton proposal appears to exceed the variances requested in 1976. <br />The Planning Commission is requested to review the documentation and <br />the options presented, and consider the following: <br />1. Should variances be granted? Is there a hardship to justify <br />granting of variances? <br />2. If so, what magnitude of variances is acceptable? <br />3. Do any of the proposed options fit within the framework for which <br />you would grant variances? <br />4. Are the property rights of the Pembertons and of the neighbors <br />protected? <br />Planning Commission has the option to recommend approval, denial or <br />tabling of this application. If you choose to table pending additional <br />revisions of the site plan^ you should give clear and concise di^ectic^ o <br />the applicant as to what limits or boundaries you will recommend as <br />acceptable for the various variances required. Any motion to <br />approval should enumerate the hardships present and address each o <br />variances allowed. A recommendation for denial would have to detail the