Laserfiche WebLink
FI <br />Si' <br />k-^ •; tc'^1. <br />3 <br />Berg stated in her opinion this is a rebuild and not a remodel. Berg inquired why the proposal on the <br />new residence was denied. <br />Rahn stated the Council denied the previous proposal and directed the applicant to reduce the hardcover <br />to2S percent <br />Bremer inquired whether the additional removals of hardcover outlined on Exhibit F would bring the <br />hardcover below 30 percent <br />Oundlach stated the additional removals would bring it down to 29 percent Gundlach stated the <br />applicant would like to retain the existing driveway. Gundlach indicated if a portion of the driveway is <br />removed under the current |m>posal, it would reduce the hardcover to 31.5 percent <br />Capra stated he would rather do without the patio than reducing the driveway any further. <br />Gundlach noted she is not suggesting the entire patio be removed but rather reducing it by 200 square <br />feet. <br />Capra stated he would be willing to reduce the size of the patio. <br />Braaer mwed, Jargena aecoaded, to recommeBd approval of Applicatfon M4-3010,3534 Ivy <br />Flace, graatiag of a hardcover variaacc to permit 30 percent hardcover la the 7S*-2S0*, a <br />hardcover variaace to peraUt oa|y so mach hardcover in the 0>75* as required to permit access to <br />the lake, subject to the redactloBS ia the hardcover to 30 pcrceat, and fhrthcr subject to the <br />recommeadatioBS of tbe CiQr Engjaecr. AYES: 4, Nays 2, Berg and Raba opposed. <br />Rahn stated he is opposed to the motion since it does not meet the intent of what the City hopes to <br />achieve by remodeling existing buildings. Rahn stated if 30 percent is to be allowed, he would prefer a <br />new residence be constructed. <br />Berg concurred with Rahn.