Laserfiche WebLink
w <br />Zoning File #2057 <br />August 16, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br />No justification has been given for the side setback variance, although the same <br />arguments might be made. i.e. the existing house is only 1.6’ from 'he side lot line, and the new <br />construction will be much more conforming. <br />Reconstruction of the garage and driveway area is positive from a hardcover and setback <br />standpoint, and the "technicality" of a high percentage in the 250-500’ setback zone is justified <br />by the minimal area of that zone. <br />The average setback line is defined by the neighboring residences, the northerly of which <br />is located quite distant from the shoreline. That residence will likely be removed and a new one <br />constructed up to the 75’ setback line at some future date. Even if that did occur, the proposed <br />deck encroachment in the 0-75’ zone would not necessarily fall behind the redefined average <br />setback line. Planning Commission must consider the long-term goal of the City that there <br />should be no encroachment of the 0-75’ zone, and approval of the current proposed <br />encroachment would delay achievement of that goal. <br />Finally, it should be noted that while hardcover excesses are proposed in each of the <br />three zones, overall hardcover reduces from 28.5% to 26.9%, still slightly higher than the <br />DNR’s 25% standard. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />The proposal has many positive aspects, including hardcover reductions and moving <br />hardcover further from the lake. The improvements are especially positive as compared to the <br />existing situation. However, Planmng Commission must determine whether or not sufficient <br />hardship and justification exists to grant the side setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover <br />variances requested, considering that this is the City’s opportunity to start with a "clean slate" <br />and require that all setback and hardcover requirements be met. Any motion for approval should <br />clearly define which variances (in addition to the lot area/lot width/average setback variances) <br />are recommended for approval and clearly specifying the hardship and justification for those <br />additional variances. - <br />A'’i£' <br />. ; <br />/t <br />-• % <br />O <br />A ;fV. ^ - <br />^ • -/s t /' <br />••'' > ' <br />/ ' <br />C <br />r i <br />(-o He .o o S <br />..a ’;:"...--/.,, &-<=>r