04-08-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1628 March 0, 1991 Page 3 Options of Action If approved, members may consider one or more of the hardships and findings noted above. Staff would recommend that final resolution approving the average lakeshcre setback variance also include a notice to owners of the need for a conditional use permit if a non-rental guest apartment is to be installed in the basement level of the residence; or Denial, if Planning Commission denies the application, please refer to the necessary findings section of your Code. Additional COMents and Planning Cosnission Recomendation April 2, 1991 Additional Bxhibits Exhibit L - Finney Letter Regarding Second Kitchen Area in Basement Level Exhibit M - Staff Sketch of Access Stairs Structure within 0-75' Setback Area The Planning Commission unanimously accepted the hardships and findings noted by applicant in requesting the average lakeshore setback variance. The Planning Commission also noted that the property is located on a point of shoreline making it impossible to meet average lakeshore setbacks from adjacent properties. The basement level kitchen area has been addressed by the applicants in their letter. Exhibit L. A major issue raised for this review was the presence of a lakeshore access stair structure that well exceeds the allowed 4*' width for stairs and 4' x 4* landings allowed for lakeshore lots with severe sloped banks. The structure is 6 to 10 years old. Because of the length of time since original construction, the Planning Commission recommended that the structure be recognized as a nonconforming structure and subject to all pertinent standards of the Code. Any proposed structural repair of this structure would be subject to approval of the City. The Planning Commission further conditioned approval on staff making the necessary inspection to confirm structural stability, total hardcover within the 0-75' setback erea and condition of plastic underliner beneath specific landscaped •teas. Staff was also directed to determine if additional landscaping could be provided in order to screen the intensity of the structure. Please review the staff sketch Exhibit M, we would recommend that 144 s.f. of the plastic underlain beneath the landscaping in the planter boxes be removed but that the plastic under liner beneath the severely sloped landscaped bank be allowed to remain in order to prevent •tosion. Staff also reviewed the condition of the sloped banks along the shoreline of the property noting severe erosion and potential of t i