Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1919 <br />AprilU. 1994 <br />Page 4 <br />In the 75-250’ zone, hardcover is proposed to decrease from 47.6% to <br />where only 25% is allowed. Pre-existing hardcover proposed to be removed <br />includes small portion of driveway, a slab behind the garage, and other <br />miscellaneous rearrangements of walkways. <br />Is there adequate hardship shown to justify the proposed hardcover variance .> Are <br />the proposed reductions in hardcover adequate under the umquc circumstances of <br />this lot? <br />Street and side setbacks <br />It is worth noting that the existing garage was reconstructed under variance <br />approval in September 1978. A garage has existed at this location as close as . <br />from the side lot line and approximately 20’ from the street lot line since 1975 <br />or earlier. The variance is necessary because the roof envelope is expanding <br />upward in a substandard street and side yard setback, and the fact that the garage <br />and house will now be attached suggest that we are now being asked to grant <br />setbacks for a principal stnicture rather than accessory structure. The neighbor <br />to the south, Mrs. Smerling. has expressed to staff her opposition of allowing the <br />itarage roof to be raised, noting that it will block her morning sunlight to an even <br />Breafer extent than it is now blocked. Is there suflicient hardship to grant a <br />variance allowing the existing garage to be 4’ higher as close as 2’ to the side lot <br />line? <br />Bluff setback <br />Staff initially reviewed the bluff status of this site approximately two months ago <br />and initially concluded that the top of the bluff was at approximately the 955 <br />contoua and that the proposed construction met a 30’ setback. In the weeks that <br />followed, intensive bluff interpretation discussions with the DNR ensued and <br />consequently staff concluded that the current code is neither practicable nor <br />defensible. ' That is why tonight ’s agenda includes a proposed "top of bluff’ <br />definition amendment. <br />Under the current definition, "top of the blufP for this property is 2’ lakeward <br />of the proposed decks, and virtually all of the decks and a significant portion ot <br />the house would be encroaching the required 30’ top of bluff setback. However, <br />under the proposed ordinance amendment, top of bluff would be approximately <br />47 ’ inland from the shoreline, and the 30’ setback from top of bluff would not be <br />encroached upon by either decks or house.