06-20-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i-i- • ^ "V% ^7)?: v's’j r i « . '.< • . Zoning File #1280 Page 4 Staff views this application as similar to the request by Denny uilliams at 1932 Pagerness Point Road in 1985» in which a ^eiitiJel? S»all cabin «as allowed to be ttansfotmed into a larger residence, located only 26’ or so from the lakeshore. Visually, staff believes this application, generate the same comments and criticism from the public * tSe Milliams appt-val, and generally “‘^^t be Received « an unusual approval. However, again be reminded that this property has unique circumstances and hardships that may in fa provide a basis for some type of approval. Staff would question the appropriateness of the aPP^^®^'® elimination of an existing deck over a living space, thereby necessitating sideward encroachment into the 0-75 zone to create a new deck. ^While the raw hardcover percentages show a slight Lcreasrwith this proposal, the structural hardcover increases as a result of deck apace would appear excessive. Staff does not find any hardship to justify deck encroaching closer to the lake than the existing deck, and would recommend that the deck portion on the lake side of the house be eliminated, with a stairway l«^®ted within the newer deck ^ at the west end of the hosue, if in fa®^^**® P^°P°®® approved. Staff would also note that the sidewalks proposal have been minimized to include just those which are necessary. Note that there is no below-grade basement for this house, but ?he existing lower floor is used essentially as a basem^ent currently, and the owner notes it has some water problems. Note that all new additions must have floor levels no lower tha * elevation 932.5 MSL. staff Recommendation - Staff would recommend that Planning Commission review the application in relation to what has been approved Tn o^ with an eye toward reducing the degree of lateral structural hardcover increase, and reducing to the^ greatest extent possible the continued ®"f decks on the northerly lake side of the house. Also, Planning ?ILlssion n%h°t consider whether the addition of the turret room above the roofline will perceptually add greatly t® the bulk the house, and whether its elimination would make this structure visually less obtrusive; but remember that the ha consistently recommended that additions upwards, not laterally, and the turret meets the 30* height limit But IS over new structure. The proposal appears somew excessive in ha-r3cover, in relation to P®®V’^P"®^®^® ^he situations. Planning Commission must consider the property owner weighed against the Potential detriment to t^ health, safety and welfare of the community and the intent of the LR-IC zoning district. ♦I