Laserfiche WebLink
#2166 - Janet Kieman <br />August 14, 1996 <br />Page 6 <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1 . Is the 0-75’ hardcover reduction from 6.0% to 5.6% justification to allow a good share of the <br />hardcover to be reconstructed as terrace located 55' to 70' from the lake? <br />2. Given the City's policy to not allow a hardcover reduction for grass pavers, there is a 0.1% <br />hardcover increase proposed. Is this increase justified, or should applicant remove additional <br />hardcover to result in no net increase, or even some net decrease, in 75-250' hardcover? <br />3. Is the minimal impact on neighboring property's view’s of the lake, sufficient justification for <br />the average lakeshore setback? <br />4. Is the magnitude of roof changes above the e.xisting south and east walls of the house so <br />minimal as to not create significant side setback or lake setback concerns? <br />5. Given the proposed garage expansion from two stalls to four stalls, is there any justification <br />to grant a setback variance if that garage exceeds 1 ,000 s.f. footprint area and by definition <br />becomes an oversized accessory structure required to meet 50' street and 30' side setbacks? <br />Is it more appropriate to limit that garage to no more than 1,000 s.f, and grant a variance <br />from the required 15' street setback to allow it at 10.7'? Or, is there insufficient justification <br />to grant the street setback variance? If this is the case, then the garage could likely be <br />expanded to just a three stall capacity, of footprint area approximately 800 s.f and still meet <br />the required 15' setback. An alternative would be to offset a 2-stalI addition to meet the <br />required 15' setback. <br />6. Does Planning Commission have specific concerns regarding the septic system? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />A. Planning Commission must determine whether the proposed hardcover <br />additions/reductions/revisions are appropriate as indicated. <br />B. Plaiming Commission should likewise determine whether the impacts of the average <br />lakeshore setback encroachment by the new addition and revisions to the existing house are of <br />concern. <br />C. Planning Commission should determine whether the roof changes for portions of the existing <br />house that encroach the lake setback and side setback are appropriate. <br />D. Planning Commission should reach a conclusion whether a street setback variance is <br />appropriate for expansion of the existing garage, or w hether the garage addition should be reduced <br />in size or offset.