05-28-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6. In a second motion the Planning Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend approval of variances to permit a lakeside addition to the residence, creating a further encroachment into the bluff area. This portion of the project includes the 13 ’ of additional encroachment for the living room e.xpansion. It was the minority opinion of the Planning Commission that the proposed building addition could be reduced in size. There was also a question whether a building expansion towards the lake.>’....e constitutes a hardship. 5. The recommendations were based on the following findings and hardships: A.The property is ten plus acres. All but approximately 4% of the lot is located either within wetland, the bluff zone, and the required setbacks. B.The present home was built in a legal location prior to the bluff ordinance. Any additions to the house would require variances. C.The site does not drain directly to the lake but rather to the 5*acre wetland located at the base of the bluff. D.The topography of the lot uniquely restricts the ability to make an addition onto any part of the building. E.No addition could be buiit on the house that would not fall within the impact zone. F.The area where the proposed lakeside additions are to be constructed is relatively Hat with less than a 2' drop from the existing exterior wall and the proposed wall of the addition. Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend denial of the variance to permit the garage addition to be located 20.S ’ from the side property line where a 30' setback is required. The recommendation of denial is based on the following: A.Any addition that would create a side setback encroachment for the principal building would be inconsistent with the development patterns intended for properties in the LR-IA zoning district. Page 2 of7 .xatOemtSat L' ■■■iitri r—in-ir«<t*nv.4-n