04-25-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

«M)5-30i9 April 18.2005 Page 2 of 3 B 5 t i' I 1 a Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not a|q>ly to stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(1 6XQ), 2-24-1992) List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Survey & Hardcover Calculations Exhibit B - Notice of PC Action dated 3-22-05 Exhibit C - PC Report dated 3-17-05 t Background The applicant appeared before the Planning Conunission during the March meeting requesting hardcover variances and an average lakeshore setback variance to permit a 4’ edition to the lake side of the home. The Planning Commission recommend^ denial at that meeting noting that lake views of the neighbor to the south would be negatively impacted by the proposed addition. The ^plicant indicated he would redesign. The applicant has submitted a revised plan, wdiich abandons any lakeward addition. The new proposal consists of relocating the hot tub to the roof of the existing porch (which currently is a deck), an addition connecting the house and detached garage, and removal of hardcover within the 75 ’-250 ’ zone. Hardcover within the 250 ’-500 ’ zone is proposed to change to allow the garage to front-load, but will not increase above the existing 64.4%. Average Laknhore Setback Variance Placing the hot tub on the roof requires an average lakeshore setback variance because the existing structure encroaches on the required setback. During the initial review, sUJf and the Planning Commission commented that an upward addition would not negatively impact lake views based on the photographs contained in the report. Staff frnds that the placement of the hot tub on the roof has less of an impact on the neighbor’s views than an upward addition, and would therefore recommend approval of that request. Staff would stipulate that the only access to that hot tub should be internally from the house to further lessen negative impacts. 7S*-2S0* Hardcover The applicant has proposed to eliminate qjproximately 1,000 s.f. of non-structural hardcover widiin the 75 ’-2S0* zone. The removals consist of retaining walls, hot tub and associated deck, driveway and walkway with approximately 340 s.f of new hardcover. The new hardcover will consist of the action fnoposed to connect the house and garage and new driveway. With these improvements the ^^licant has proposed a conforming level of 2S%, no longer requiring a variance. The structural coverage amount will