03-16-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t • S' Zoning File #1110 March 5, 1987 Page 2 of 4 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Applicant's Memo Dated 2/27/87 Hardcover Analysis Sheet by Applicant Site Plan - Revised Plan Plan for Hardcover Analysis House - Elevation South Elevation North Elevation Floor Plan - First Floor Floor Plan - Second Floor Site Plan - Original Plan Staff Sketch Issues to be resolved in second reviews Side Setback Variance - The revised plan will not require the side setback variances on each side as with the original proposal. architect has recommended a revision in design that he perfers over the first plan which fortunately also meets both side yard setbacks of 30 staff would not have been able to support the Planning Commission s recommendation of approval for the side yard setbacks when dealing with a simultaneous application for a width variance for new development absent the required physical hardship to the land. Av erage Setback Line Variances - The applicant advises that his insurance carrier will not require fencing around the pool. Staff advised the applicant that a fence (not to exceed 3'6" in height) can be placed in the lakeshore yard up to the 75 feet lakeshore setback line. Such structures are not subject to the provisions of the average lakeshore setback/viewing standard. Martinson has advised, that at some future aate, he may wish to install a fence but it would not ei-.ceed the allowable height. It should be noted that the pool area is located approximately 95 feet from both adjacent residential structures (see Exhibit K). Staff would recommend that approval of these structures be conditioned such that no additions or modifications to the deck and pool will result in an increased vertical elevations* The deck and pool as proposed will create no viewing problems for adjacent neighbors. Accessory Structures on Thro ugh Lots - The deck tenn.^ s court structure i» now located 30 feet from the rear/street lot line. The zode requires 50 feet - there is adequate depth in the rear yard to meet the required setback without requiring the reroval of existing trees, compare Exhibits 6 J. Mr. Anderson, owner to the north, is still out of town and has yet to be contacted by the applicant. Prior to our first review Mrs. Bouchard, neighbor to the south, called to advise of her complete approval of Mr. Martinson's site development plan. The Bouchard residence would be 130 feet from the deck/tennis court with the rear/street setback at 50 ise® Exhibit K) - the Anderson residence would be 150 feet. «OI«-