Laserfiche WebLink
IN- <br />Lnistrator <br />• • <br />over variances to <br />bcrir.c: Prc’^.-ertiss <br />jwever, due to the <br />square footage of <br />:h is allowed, per <br />rocosed <br />s.f. ( 0%) <br />s.f. (17.5%) <br />s.f. (68.2%) <br />s.f. <br />mmM <br />a-’'S|Ff' S' <br />■;C <br />■■ <br />m: <br />LN <br />Ir '-w\ <br />; <br />i <br />% <br />P i <br />"oning File #1362 <br />January 11, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />2.The proposed addition and decks, while being located more than 160* <br />from the normal shoreline, does require an average lakeshore setback <br />variance due to the convex shoreline at this point. Neither <br />neighboring property owner enjoys significant lake views across the <br />area proposed for the addition. <br />Note that the applicant originally questioned the City's <br />. Interpretation of the ordinance language regarding the average, <br />lakeshore setback. A literal interpretation of that section as <br />written would indicate that a measurement should be taken of the <br />distance from the shoreline of the houses on either side, and the <br />middle house must meet the average of those two distances. In fact, <br />the proposed decks and addition would meet that standard, if that was <br />how the City had always Interpreted the code section. However, <br />standard City practice has been to draw a straight line between the <br />neighboring adjacent: resident: snructuresas shewn in Exhibit F, and <br />than is considered the average setback line regardless of actual <br />dioiances frem one lik ashore. Vnu ray recall that this incartr eta tier, <br />was brought to the Planning Commission as an informal conceptual <br />review at your November meeting, and Planning Commission unanimously <br />felt that the interpretation of average setback by drawing a straight <br />line should be continued, not only from a consistency standpoint, but <br />from a practical application standpoint. <br />Discussion - <br />The proposed addition and decks appear to be appropriately and <br />logically located in relation to the property and to the existing <br />residence. Note that the house to the immediate south has a garage on its <br />north side, and has no views of the lake that will be encroached upon by <br />this proposed addition. The house to the north side of the subject <br />property enjoys views generally in a westerly direction, and the existing <br />bluff topography southwest of the proposed addition already blocks any <br />substantial lake views that might potentially be blocked by the proposed <br />decks. Therefore, it appears that neither adjacent residence will be <br />significantly affected by this addition. <br />Zoning Fi <br />January J <br />Page 3 oi <br />Froi <br />typical <br />visualize <br />that if <br />would th< <br />virtual 1; <br />appear t <br />similar i <br />Staff Rec <br />Staf <br />lakeshore