06-12-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U2581 June 1,2000 Page 2 the ordinance has always been worded and interpreted: "No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75' of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing (emphasis added) residence buildings on adjacent lots..." There is nothing in the ordinance that gives a moving party the right to be closer than the 75' setback merely because the existing adjacent homes are non-conforming. 3. Privacy for the adjacent homes is compromised by setting the new house so that its lakeshore yard is within the side yard view of the adjacent homes. This is a legitimate concern; however, should this concern override the long-term goals of the City? Is loss of privacy a legitimate hardship? The adjacent neighboring property owner to the north, Tom Palm, was granted variances in 1994 to add a second story above his existing residence 39 ’ from the shoreline. When it was later found that the home would have tc be totally rebuilt, he was granted a variance to be 50' from the shoreline with the new home. 50' happened to be the DNR’s minimum setback Standard for General Development lakes, and happened to place his residence in line with homes on either side. The angle of the shoreline in this immediate neighborhood provides a striking example of the conflict between keeping the homes ‘in line’ and the City’s long term goals. Palm’s house at 1685 Concordia is 50' from the nearest point on the shoreline; Gehring’s proposed west facade will be directly in line with that of Palm, but will be 42' from the shore; and the adjacent house to the south at 1695 Concordia, s also directly in line but is only 36' from the shore, with a deck only 26' from the shore. The house at 1695 is an old (ca. 1910) small cabin on a lot assessed at 3 times the structure value; this one will surely be in for a teardown/rebuild in the relatively near future. And it gets even worse; the next let down the line, at 1705, has an old cabin valued at less than 1/lOth the land value, located just 30' from the shoreline. It would be extremely counterproductive to let 1695 or 1705 be rebuilt 36' or 30' from the shore just because they would stay ‘in line’ with the others. Ifeach house in this line is set square with the side lot lines at a 50' setback, they will each be offset 6-8' from each other, which should not cause anv privacy concerns. Recommendation / would strongly urge that Council not accept the 42' setback but hold the standard to at least SO' for the Gehring request, as well as for future requests in this immediate neighborhood. I do believe that the low topography is a legitimate hardship supporting a variance from the 75' standard for Gehring’s situation; this topographic constraint affects a few other adjacent lots and is unlikely to be easily or inexpensively solved. Slightly raising the grade at the homesites and leaving the remainder of yard area as a drainage basin is probably the least expensive solution. Attachment: Neighborhood Topography I "= 100'