08-21-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^;i|mmMmm.table form of Both the DNR 3ve the use of proposed tram ifas to employ »ad with 4’x4’ ild be required > provide many .so provides a requiring less iover for tram area. B.f. or 31.6% 5 s.f. or 1.6% 5 s.f. or 35% *1 5 s.f. or 5% ;ing size of ■ from the 75- dcover within sting) jlne and immmsiv-'i m % . ’ , ■■ * :*•*' ; " sm . r '.'i ' ■ • • •' ■. / 4 D-••.• ••V.M'i‘i.-u*'k Wm. ji tiW!^ i mmmiZoning File #1430 August 10r 1989 Page 3 of 3Mwlaw of ^plication - w ..nThe applicant is the owner and builder of the hcrnie currently under construction. Mr. Morse proposes installation of a 4 wide tram to achieve access via the steep la)teshore bank as noted above. This is an approved method by both the DNR and the WCD. This form of access would also be consistent with the City s policy to minimize the impact on steep lakeshore banks with excessive land alterations. A staircase over such steep terrain built to Building Code Standards would require several safety landings creating a major visual impact from the lakeshore. The second phase of the variance application involves the applicant's desire to build a gazebo and deck area at the 75' setback line. The selected site area provides gentle, flat sloped plateau area to facilitate construction. Review Exhibit I, the maximum height of the gazebo structure would be 16' above grade at the 962 elevation. The average lakeshore setback is located at approximately 1,008 elevation with the maximum height of the gazebo structure at 978 elevation would provide a 30' difference. The accessory structures as proposed will not be visible from the viewing windows of the adjacent residences, nor will they be visible from the viewing windows of the existing residence at that proposed elevation. Access to the deck and gazebo will be via the tram. There will be no additional staircases located within the lakeshore yard except for the staircase that leads from the deck area (review Exhibits H 4 I). Options of Action - 1. Denial. If application is to be denied, please refer Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A). 2.Approval based on the following hardships and findings: A) Majority of 75-250' lakeshore yard area is located in front of the average lakeshore setbck line. B) The proposed location of the accessory in relation to existing elevation creates impact for adjacent neighboring homes. C) No hardcover variance is required for the proposed accessory structures. Planning Commission should make a recommendation regarding the hardcover excess within the 250—500' setback area, although this has nothing to do with the present application. Applicant may either reduce proposed driveway or seek credit of the excess hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. If such a credit is approved, the hardcover inventory will be adjusted to reflect t^ credit. It should also be noted that this property consists of another lot on the east side of the unimproved public roadway but cannot be credited to the property because of the inability to legally combine the parcels. ..jmm ■car- . structures no visual , i- ■ . ■ ^ V'- V. -Si- I r ; .V \ V • ' pii mmi 1