Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />M <br />W4.3009 <br />May 12,2004 <br />Page 5 <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4, <br />5. <br />Does the fact that applicant will be removing two nonconforming structures (garage too near the <br />road, house mostly within 75' of the lake) have any bearing on whether a hardcover variance should <br />be granted? <br />To what extent, if any, is a hardcover variance justified based on the need to keep the house <br />relatively near the lake due to the location of adj acent homes which block peripheral lake views <br />as the house moves further back toward the road? <br />Is there anyjustification for a lot coverage variance? It appears applicant’s proposal mistakenly <br />assumed the 75-250'zone was 11,600 s.f. in area based on the surveyor’s 1986 numbers, which <br />apparently didn’t account for the 929.4' OHWLbut which also showed a lot size more than 1400 <br />sf greater than depicted by today's survey. <br />The property is relatively flat, with a gentle slope from nonh to south. Applicant has not provided <br />a topographical survey nor a grading plan. The house elevation views and floor plans suggest a <br />basement is proposed. This lot should not be filled to create a walkout, as that would place it out <br />of character with the surroundings. By the same token, the basement floor elevation can be no <br />lower than elevation 932.5'. City topography maps indicate lowest grade at the existing house is <br />about 937'; if they are correct, abasement could be placed about 4.5' into tlie ground on the south <br />side. A site grading and drainage plan with existing and proposed contours will be required prior <br />to Council action if this application moves forward. <br />Should the proposed house and site plan be redesigned to reduce the extent ofliardcover variance <br />and eliminate any lot coverage variance? <br />6. Does the Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns about this proposal? <br />1