Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1997 <br />February 13, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br />In reviewing Exhibits M and N and the hardcover fact sheets, J and K, the applicants rroposc <br />major reductions of hardcover totally 1,054.2 s.f. or 12.43%. The proposed site plan does not <br />reflect specific removals of existing hardcover improvements. It appears that only the stone <br />walkway at the northeast side of the residence will remain along with the gravel parking area <br />and street entrance areas. The elevations reveal no other access doors to north, west or south. <br />Statement of Hardship <br />Refer to Exhibits E and F, applicants’ Statement of Hardship and unusual propeny conditions <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1.As already noted above, total hardcover on the property has been reduced from <br />69% to 56.6%. Is the proposal too ambitious for the severely limited property? <br />Should residence be relocated more to the south to minimize substandard setback <br />at north lot line? - - - Should building footprint be reduced? <br />3.Now that a new structure is to be rebuilt on property, should stmeture be pull^ <br />further away from main lake to the east? - - - Refer to survey, Exhibit L, and still <br />maintain 75’ setback from lagoon? <br />4.Review Exhibit P, the elevations of tlic residence reveal no additional access <br />doors which may not be realistic or practical. Many lakeshore owners ^»<^sciate <br />a direct access to lake from their lakeside. Applicants should be aske*’ o respond <br />to this issue. <br />5.A well was installed on this property in 1989 but has not been located on the <br />survey. Applicants should be aware if there is a need to install new well if house <br />is to be relocated. <br />Ceil Strauss of the DNR has been sent the information in the variance packet and will be asked <br />to comment. Suiff vdll report on her final corrments at your meeting. <br />m