02-18-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Zoning File #2187 January 15, 1997 Page 2 includes a stairway apparently providing secondaiy access to the basement, which wasn’t included in the original plan. This adds nearly 4’ to the encroachment of the street setback, i.e. without the stairway the street setback would be approximately 28’. However, that 4' stairway also has a more important purpose and that is to offset the garage from the house so that a car entering or leaving that garage stall will not have to bend around the projecting great room (compare the line of car travel in Exhibits B and C). Without the 4’ extension, ingress/egress for the garage will be diftkult. Recall that the applicants felt strongly that the garage stall is an important facet of this project given the intent to create a guest apartment that may at some point need to be handicapped accessible. Items for Discussion 1.Referring to the November 14th memo. Planning Commission should determine whether the following requested setbacks can be supported by adequate findings of hardship; a. Required east side setback = 30', proposed east side setback = 5'. b. Required lake setback = 150', proposed lake setback = 126'. c. Average setback encroachment (reducing from 90’ to 80 ’). 2.Is the proposed garage stall necessary? Is the proposed street setback of 24' instead of the required 50 ’, justified by hardships? Could the garage stall be reconfigured (for instance, angled outward with the pi\ ot point at its southwest comer) to allow a 28' street setback and still accommodate easy ingress/egress for a \’ehicle? What impact would such an angle ha\ e visually and structurally? Is that concept worth exploring? 3.Reviewing the DNR comments rccei\ ed November 19ih recommending denial of the lakeshore setback variance, does this affect Planning Commission ’s view- of this project? 4.Given the magnitude of the additions to the west, are there still suitable hardships for granting the east side setback variance? 5.Under the new plan, can Planning Commission find that all of the code requirements for a non-rental guest apartment have been adequately addressed? Can Planning Commission find that the guest apartment is designed to functionally and visually be a part of the principal residence rather than an entirely separate unit that could become a rental unit? 6.Does Planning Commission have specific concerns about the lack of an alternate drainfield site (see discussion of this in November 18th minutes)? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that adequate findings of hardship can be made in support of the