03-17-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

increase in roof height. That house docs not look across the property in question to have a sieu- 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 existing 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 proposed work includes replacement of some w indow s, diwrs and walls on the second story of the house. 1 he first story of the structure and other portions of the home w ill 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 story and a two level addition with parapet between ll.c garage and the existing home. The City Council approved ’ ariances for; 30"/o hardcover in the 0- 75’ hardcover zone; 30.9% hardcover in the 75’*?50 ’ hardcover zone, and slmcturc located IT from the shoreline for these additions. There is no proposed change in hardcover with 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 sam. .setbacks (from the lake, side lot lino and average lakeshore iClback) as arc currently proposed; 2. The application does not propose to increase the footprint of the structure (with 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 casu 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. increasing the height of this residence within 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. b0)‘28'3 SiinJ'J Ann Bx'nson 3 IS :003 Pu.ec 3 t)f 3