Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1958 <br />November 16, 1995 <br />Page 5 <br />Based on the restricted or limited building envelopes the City may have to prohibit the <br />installation of full basements. Applicant should be adrised that filling of over 100 cubic yards <br />of fill in the preparation of a building pad would require a conditional use permit. Applicant <br />should also be advised that height regulations are based on e.xisting elevations and not on fmal <br />elevations. <br />The City Engineer asks that utility easements be dedicated over the existing municipal lines <br />that encroach the property along the west lot line, refer to E.xhibit A. The City will ask for <br />a 20* utility easement <br />Variances <br />The applicant seeks approval of a lakeshore setback variance for the proposed residence on Lot <br />1. The structure is shown as encroaching the lakeshore setback line by 6'. <br />Hardcover reductions are shown on both lots, 23.03% for Lot 1 and 3.5% for Lot 2. There <br />will be further reductions when driveway areas are reduced with the shared access plan. <br />Applicant also proposes retaining certain existing hardcover improvements within the 0-75' <br />setback area. Review Exhibits FI and O, 124 s.f or 2.19% existing hardcover shall remain <br />within Lot 2's lakeshore yard. <br />Structural coverage for Lot 1 is proposed at 15.6% and 10.6% for Lot 2. Applicant should be <br />advised that all accessory structures and decks with railing will be included within structural <br />coverage. Note plans do not show future deck. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Will members approve lakeshore setback variance for the new construction on Lot 1? <br />Will you approve hardcover variances within the 75-250* setback area based on overall <br />reduction or will new construction be limited to 2,838 s.f. or 25% for Lot 1 and 3,220 <br />s.f or 25% for Lot 2. <br />Can railroad tie structure within 0-75 ’ setback area on proposed Lot 2 be removed? <br />The smaller of the lots, Lot 1, is shown at 2,570 s.f structural improvements and the <br />larger lot is shown at 2,120 s.f of structural improvements. Why is applicant proposing <br />a larger residence for the smaller lot? Will members approve a structural coverage <br />variance?