Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2009 <br />April 7, 1995 <br />Page 3 <br />Hardcover reductions are shown in all three setback areas. More stnicmral <br />improvements are placed out of the 0-75’ zone and with the reduction in the width of the <br />driveway and the removal of the shed, hardcover reductions are reflected in both the 75-250’ <br />and 250*500’ setback areas. Note the structural improvements are still held to less than 15 <br />This'includes the roofed porch to the street side of the residence. Staff does not have any <br />accurate dimensions for the roofed lakeshore entrance but it is still doubtful whether that portion <br />of the struemre would bring the improvement over the allov ed 15% but applicant must provide <br />clarification. <br />The visual impact of the total strucmral envelope will not change significantly with the <br />current proposal. The original application proposed a two-story 20.5 x 54.3 resideiKe and the <br />current proposal involves a 30’ x 46’ two-story residence. The current proposal involves a 10’ <br />X 30’ deck extending from the lakeside of the residence where the original proposal showed a <br />30’ X 10’ deck that also extended along the side of the house. <br />As of this writing, the City has received a call from a neighbor noting complete support <br />of new proposal. <br />Statement of Hardships <br />Applicant asks you to review his comments concerning the comparison of the findings <br />of the original approvals, Exhibit B-2. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />Does the fact that we are dealing with new construction have any impact on your <br />consideration of this current proposal? Applicant is meeting with Ceil Strauss of the <br />DNR to discuss his new proposal. Note the principal smicmre will meet the 50’ <br />minimum setback of the State for General Development lakes. The applicant has asked <br />Ms. Strauss to comment on the proposed grade-level deck without railings. <br />Is the proposal too ambitious or is it consistent with the total improvements approved in <br />Application #1983 ... or is it better? <br />Does the fact that the City will more ‘Jian likely be dealing with die rebuild of a <br />residence to the immediate south hav. any impact on your current decision. <br />Options of Action <br />To either deny or approve the current proposal as presented <br />OR <br />To table application providing applicant additional time to address any concerns raised <br />by Planning Conunission members.