07-18-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r • 5 Zoning FUe #1941 July 15, 1994 Page 4 wooden sea wall was replaced with a steel wall and the channel linking the pond with the main lake was dredged to provide navigable waters for boats stored at the shoreline of the pond. In reviewing applicants’ addendum, it is almost impossible to understand how anyone could purchase th.- property witliout knowing some of the history by reviewing the files and the 1986 dredging resoiicon filed against the chain of title to the property. Clearly during the 1986 review for Joseph Durda, the City had taken a formal position on the designation of the pond bemg pan of the main lake. Unfortunately, this resolution was never filed as Mr. and Mrs. Durda failed to execute the resolutions. Review of Hardships, Exhibit B 1. The applicants note that 80% of the total property is unbuildable The house was placed on the property in 1973 prior to current lakeshore setback standards. 3. The majority of the house is located within the 0-75 ’ setback area. 4. The current proposal mvolves decreases within the 0-75 ’ and 75-250 setback area. Issues for Consideration 1.Major hardcover reductions are proposed in the 75-250 ’ setback area but what of the 0- 75 ’? Staff would note that a 106.5 s.f. or .5% can also be reduced m the 0-75 as a credit for the 1 1/2’ width of overhang against 3 ’ wide upper level balcony. 2.As already noted in applicants’ hardship statement, the majority of this located in a "no build" area. Is it possible to relocate improvements within the 75-250 setback? Note the entire home is located within the 0-75 ’ setback except for iwrtions o the garage and now the new entry addition. The area of proposed hardcover improvements are as follows: a.309 s.f. or 1.3% of deck improvements within 0-75 ’ b. Footprint of two story addition within 0-75 ’ setback area - 298 s.f. or 1.28%. c. New entry addition and mud room within 75-250 ’ setback area results in 600 s.f. or 5.7%. ft \ I ,