03-24-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pr f increase in roof height. That house does not look across the property in question to have a view of the lake. Therefore, an average setback variance may be appropriate. Other Comments: Structural Engineer Letter Jared K. Larson of Larson Associates Inc. has reviewed the proposed roof reconstruction for the applicant and has found that the e.\isting foundation and walls can support the proposed work. The City's Building Inspector has reviewed the letter and finds that the information provided is sufficient. Extent of Proposed Work The propu.sed work includes replacement of some windows, doors and walls on the second story of the house. The first story of the structure and other portions of the home will not be modified as a result of this proposal. History: This property was granted variances in 1988 (zoning file #1280; resolution #2483) to construct the second story over the existing first stor>' and a two level addition with parapet between the garage and the existing home. The City Council approved variances for: 30% hardcover in the 0- 75 ’ hardcover zone; 30.9% hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ hardcover zone; and structure located 17 ’ from the shoreline for these additions. There is no proposed change in hardcover w ith this application. Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B 4/4. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. Variances approved in 1988 permitted a second story addition on the existing home, located within the same setbacks (from the lake, side lot line and average lakeshore setback) as arc currently proposed; 2. The application does not propose to increa.se the footprint of the structure (w ith the exception of minimal overhang encroachments) nor change the existing setbacks (from the lake, side lot line and average lakeshore setback) nor change hardcover; 3. The original structure (prior to the 1988 additions) has been located within the existing footprint since 1959; 4. The neighboring structure to the east, located at 1384 Baldur Park Road, has been in its current location since before 1955; 5. The property is unique in that it has lakeshore on front and rear and almost all of the lot falls within the required 75 ’ structure setback from the OHWL; 6. Does increasing the height of this residence w ithin an extremely substandard setback suggest the need for additional screening or other methods to mitigate its visual impact as viewed from the lake? 7. Other issues as raised by the Planning Commission. n()}~2H75 Sandra Ann Benson 3/13/200} Page 3 of 5