Laserfiche WebLink
Bremec stated restoring original homes along the lalce lielps to Ureserve the rural character of the city but that there is always a ' <br /> concern with using the existing foundation. <br /> Capra stated due to the present condition of t1�e house, it would be better to tear it down. <br /> Aleaander stated the exterior walls of the house are fine but that the height of the main floor is substandard,which is the reason <br /> for raising the height. <br /> Capra noted the eaisting residence is only 1,000 s9uare feet and that he is only basically allowed to go up under the 25 percent <br /> I�ardcover limitation. <br /> . Rahn pointed out he is not saying the applicant is limited to only going up with the structure. <br /> Jurgens stated the main reason this application is before the Planning Commission is the amount of hardcover on the lot,which <br /> is preventing the applicant fi•om obtaining a building permit. Jurgens inc�uired if the rationale for removing the second stoiy is <br /> because of the suUstandard ceiling height of tl�e first floor. <br /> Afexander stated they could piece in a foot and a half on top of the first floor rather than tearing down the first floor walls, <br /> which would help preserve more of the original house. Atexander stated that type of consh•uction is more expensive. <br /> Jurgens stated he would like to see the hardcover reduced to 30 percent. � <br /> Winkey noted they were denied at 30 percent on the rebuild proposal and that the Planning Commission may not be achieving <br /> their ultimate goal of 25 percent hardcover by allowing the remodel at 32 percent. Winkey stated in his view this is a rebuild <br /> and that the objective should be to reduce the amount of hardcover to less than 30 percent. <br /> Capra stated tlie cost to do a retnodel project is thousands of dollars more and that it would make more sense to construct new <br /> on this lot but at 30 percent hardcover. <br /> Berg stated in her opinion this is a rebuild and not a remodel. Berg inc�uired why the proposal on the new residence was denied. <br /> Rahn stated the Council denied the previous proposal and directed the applicant to reduce the hardcover to 25 percent sh•ictly <br /> because it was a rebuild. <br /> Bremer inquired whether the additional removals of hardcover outlined on Exhibit F would bring the hardcover below 30 <br /> percent. <br /> Gundlach stated the additional removals would bring it down to 29 percent. Gundlach stated the applicant would like to retani <br /> the existing driveway. Gundlach indicated if a portion of the driveway is not removed under the current proposal in Exhibit F, <br /> it would reduce the hardcover to 31.5 percent. <br /> Capra stated he would rather do without the patio than reducing the driveway any further. <br /> Gundlach noted she is not suggesting the entire patio be removed but rather reducing it by approximately 200 square feet. <br /> Capra stated he would be willing to reduce the size of the patio in exchange for keeping more driveway. <br /> Bremer moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommeud approval of Application#04-3010,3534 Ivy P.lace,granting of a hardcover <br /> variance to permit 30 percent hacdcover i»the 75'-250',a hardcover variance to permit on(y so much hardcover in the 0-75' as <br /> required to permit access to the lake,subject to the reductions in the hardcover to 30 percent,and further subject to the <br /> recommendations of the City Engineer. AYES: 4,Nays 2,Berg and Ralin opposed. <br /> Rahn stated he is opposed to the motion since it does not meet tl�e intent of wh�t the City hopes to achieve by <br /> remodeling existing buildings. RAhn stated if 30 percent is to be allowed,l�e would prefe!•a new residence be <br /> constructed. Berg concurred with Rnlin. - <br /> 6 <br />