Laserfiche WebLink
Mikkelson stated he has a number of addresses along the lakeshore that have recently been granted more <br />hardcover than what he is proposing. <br />Sansevere stated the Council has to do what is right and be consistent. <br />Jurgens inquired whether there is a prowl that extends forward from the deck. <br />Mikkelson stated the prowl creates less hardcover. <br />Gaffron indicated it extends approximately four feet over the average lake shore setback line. <br />Jurgens stated the extension of the roofline should be taken into consideration. Jurgens stated the reason <br />for his dissention on the vote was that he felt the hardcover could be reduced further. <br />Murphy inquired whether the prowl is an extension of the roof or the house. <br />Gaffron stated the prowl is an extension of the house and extends approximately another four feet. <br />Mikkelson stated his builder told him the overhang was a foot and a half around the house. <br />Murphy stated the overhang would make the house look a lot closer to the lake if the home is moved <br />seven feet forward. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the neighbor has a concern with his view given the prowl. <br />The neighbor indicated he does not. <br />Gaffron statedthe plan that was approved by the Planning Commission has a 45-foot setback. Gaffron <br />indicated staff would prefer a plan that would be closer to the 50-foot setback. <br />Whitestated he does not see a hardship to grant a variance to allow the house to be moved closer to the <br />lake. <br />Murphy stated'they would like.to meet the DNR setback of 50 feet as much as possible. Murphy inquired <br />whether the applicant eliminated the stooped entryway in the back. <br />Mikkelson stated he did. <br />Murphy stated he would not be opposed to the covered entryway. <br />Mikkelson stated the house closer to the lake would allow him a better view of the lake to keep an eye on <br />his son.