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 propose <br />major reductions of hardcover to’-lly 1,054.2 s.f. or 12.43%. The proposed site plan does not <br />reflect specific removals of exiiting 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 property conditions, <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />As already noted above, total hardcover on the property has been reduced from <br />69% to 56.^%. 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 />Now that a new structure is to be rebuil^on property, should structure be pulled <br />further away from main lake to the4&rf^ - Refer to survey. Exhibit L, and still <br />maintain 75’ setback from lagoon? <br />4,Review Exhibit P, the elevations of the residence reveal no additional access <br />doors which may not be realistic or practical. Many lakeshore owners appreciate <br />a direct access to lake from their lakeside. Applicants should be asked to 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. Staff will report on her final comments at your meeting.