Laserfiche WebLink
MT5-3087 <br />February 22,2005 <br />Page 6 of 6 <br />cove, no lake views are further obstructed and this variance is justified. The neighbor to <br />the north has no direct lake views over the applicant’s property, which is into the cove <br />not the open water, as the house and lot are oriented to the other end of the shoreline. <br />The neighbor ’s house to the south is a single story and set back farther from the lake than <br />the applicant’s property. Because the applicant’s house is an existing 2 story there are no <br />lake views to be obstructed. This neighbor does have a deck that appears to have been <br />built merely to get lake views, which staff believes will not be impacted with the <br />construction of the proposed '/i story. <br />Also to consider is whether this project should be reviewed as a rebuild or a renovation, <br />as currently proposed. In the background section of this report, and illustrated within <br />Exhibits E-I, the applicant may be reaching the 50% threshold typically used. The <br />applicant has indicated that the homeowners will be living in the home during much of <br />the work, although not construetion of the half story. Should the Planning Commission <br />determine that this project reaches the level of a rebuild, staff would not recommend <br />approval of any hardcover variance, although approval of an average lakeshore setback <br />variance remains justified. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Should this be reviewed as a renovation or a rebuild? <br />2. Should additional hardcover be approved to support a 3-stall garage? <br />3. Should a lakeside patio or deck be required? <br />4. Should the landscape fabric within the 0-75 ’ zone be removed? <br />5. Are any lake views obstructed by construction of a half story? <br />6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Should the Flamting Commission determine that review of this project should be as a <br />renovation, staff would not support approval of a hardcover variance above 27% (level <br />approved 1989), however would support approval of the average lakeshore setback <br />variance. <br />No hardcover should be permitted within the 0-75 ’ zone regardless of whether the project <br />is reviewed as a renovation or rebuild. The applicant should be required to remove the <br />230 s.f of landscape fabric in addition to the 286 s.f boat enclosure. <br />Should the Planning Commission determine that review of this project should be as a <br />rebuild, stall would recommend no level of hardcover variance be approved. Staff would <br />continue to support approval of an average lakeshore setback variance, although only <br />with no further encroachment than existing.