08-25-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 ORdN'O CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 11,2003 6. #03-2907 Jeff aod Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive—Variances—Revised Pian Gaffron stated that the application came before Council two weeks ago, and they voted to grant partial approval of the requested variances subject to the applicants providing a revised plan for review. The parameters of approval included: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Approval of a second story structure encroachment within the 0-75* setback zone, 65 ’ from the shoreline. Denial of the side setback variance for second story of structure to encroach within 4.3 ’ of left side lot line and within 2.4 ’ of right side lot line. Denial of the side setback variances for the attached garage addition to encroach within 6 ’ of the left side lot line. Approval of the removal of the existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75’ zone, subject to replacement with a smaller 95 s.f. deck as proposed, still slightly encroaching the average setback line. Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed. Applicant to provide a suitable drainage plan to be developed prior to final Council action. Gaffron stated that the applicants had presented new plans. He reviewed the plan drawings with Council. The new plan shifted the garage footprint so that it is centered on the p' operty and met the 10’ side setbacks. However other changes were in conflict with Council ’s direction. The roofline had been totaled 90 degrees so that the gable ends faced the lake and street. The second story was now almost entirely contained within a 13/12 pitch gabled roof. The roof over the garage had become a continuation of the new roof over the second story addition, rather than a separate, slightly lower roof system. The f ront line of the new garage overhangs within 4 ’ of the northerly side lot line and within 0.9 ’ of the southerly side lot line. Cutouts in the roof on the south side of the garage w ould lend some openne.ss to the area, the encroachment by a 13/12 pitch overhand would have some visual massing effects of concern. Gaffron stated that staff did not draft a resolution because the new plans did not meet requirements and raised new issues to discuss. Also, the City Engineer had not had time to review the drainage plan. Mayor Peterson asked if the plan should be returned to the Planning Commission. Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission could we it next Monday. Sanseverc stated he w ould prefer for the application to go back to the Commission. Murphy agreed. White asked if one plan was better than the other in terms of drainage. Gaffron stated that either plan could work w ith the use of gutters or swales to direct water flow. I i 1 !