Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Staff Recommendation FILE 07-3323 November 26, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Foundation Type: Staff had not previously made a recommendation at the time regarding the foundation type variance, pending research into the reasons a perimeter foundation was required. A review of the files turned up a memo (Exhibit D) that seems to explain the reasons for the requirement. To explain further, shortly before the memo was written the Legislature had amended State Statutes to preclude municipalities from prohibiting manufactured homes. But they also amended the Statutes to allow municipalities to regulate the type of foundation, roof pitch and house width. This allowed municipalities to effectively ban single-wide mobile homes supported by stacked cement blocks without footings. These regulations were not incorporated into the other residential zoning districts when the zoning code was recodified. A post foundation is the structural equivalent of a perimeter masonry or wood foundation. The Building Official indicates that it is best that a structure have only one type of foundation. With the skirting proposed this post foundation would be indistinguishable from a perimeter foundation when viewed from the exterior. Based on these factors Staff would recommend approval of the foundation type variance if the other variances are to be approved. Roof mass: Staff is concerned that the Planning Commission did not understand what the impact of the reduction in roof pitch would be. In Staffs opinion this change is unperceivable. To achieve a significant reduction in roof mass would require additional changes to the roof such as eliminating dormers, further reducing the height of the sidewalls, or decreasing roof pitch. Additional Conditions: There were two additional conditions that Staff had recommended that the Commission did not clearly address: 1. The exterior of the structure (including the roof) to be darker earth tones with the crawl space enclosed in the same color materials as the upper portion of the structure. 2. Lakeshore buffer for 75 percent of the shoreline. (This is the percentage recommended by DNR). The Applicant seemed willing to accept the first condition. The second was not specifically discussed. Given the length of the shoreline staff thought some lakeshore buffer would be appropriate, perhaps along the back of the lagoon at the base of the slope and on the side of the lagoon away from the house. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct Staff to draft a resolution approving and/or denying the variances.