Laserfiche WebLink
u 1 . ,y. <br /> Kempf sta.ted the negative impact on the neighbors given the expansion of the nonconformity would <br /> relate to their views and the amount of light that would come into their residences, and in his opinion <br /> the expansion is inappropriate given those reasons. The residence currently encroaches into the <br /> setbacks and the applicant should consider eliminating the full second-story addition and perhaps <br /> incorporating some knee walls and a partial second story to help offset the encroachment. Kempf � ' <br /> stated it does appear that this lot may not support a second story given the structural and hardcover <br /> coverage that already exists on the lot. <br /> Berg stated he is not able at this time to comment specifically�heis�raised since he has only <br /> recently learned of them. Berg indicated there are othe�o�uses on the lake across the channel that <br /> have more massing than what he is proposing for his�property. <br /> Curtis stated the residences that were constructed n"ew on�he e'ha el o meet the re�uire a�era e <br /> , � q,� , g <br /> lakeshore setback and the side yard setbacks. � � - � <br /> Kempf stated that the Planning Commission does not rnean to imply at the house would need to be <br /> relocated out of the 75 foot setback but that they woul�d�li�k,e�t`o.see the esidence meet the side yard <br /> setbacks. <br /> Turner noted the residences referred to by the a'pplican�a o�meet the structural coverage limits with <br /> the exception of one house. � <br /> 3 '.� ' <br /> Kempf noted the garage consists of a substantial amount of structural coverage. Kempf asked <br /> � whether the applicant would like his application tablea to all w him,,,�so e time to review his options - <br /> given the fact that a few of the com im ssioners have expressed�concern that the lot may be maxed out <br /> and that they would like to see the addition meet the side-yard"�setbacks. <br /> Zullo sta.ted she would like to"�se"�a�x"e�ort by a structii�al„�e�gi�indicating that the foundation would <br /> support a second story. <br /> � _.,,�.,..,4 ��'�,, . . <br /> Curtis noted the City's building inspector has�indicated the foundation does not need engmeering. <br /> Kroeg`er stated he would not be in favor of�any sid"e yard encroachment and suggested the applicant <br /> consider.converting some of the garage spac��o living space. <br /> Berg stated the garage is finis� ed of£ Berg asked if it would still be an issue if the second story does <br /> ot exceed.the building envelo�e. '` <br /> Zu�. t �.. .�� <br /> sta ed the portion of the second story that extends mto the setbacks is the issue. <br /> Curtis indicated she exp7a"med to�e applicant what he could construct without a side yard setback <br /> variance was that��e could co�struct a stepped in second story that met the ten foot setback. The <br /> applicant is now wondering�whether the Planning Commission would be okay if the second story goes <br /> over the eaterior wall rwhether a knee wall should be constructed on the exterior. <br /> (#07-3329 David Berg,Continued) � <br />