Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLAMMING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 21, 1986 <br />#1053 ROSAIC continued <br />After a lengthy review and discussion of the various <br />levels of decking and retaining wall proposal, it was <br />moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Goetten, to <br />approve a conditional use permit and variance for the <br />construction of a retaining wall and replacement of an <br />existing wall within 75 feet of the lakeshore based on <br />the overall decrease in hardcover of 1 s.f. and to deter <br />bank erosion. To approve hardcover and setback <br />variances for portions of the existing deck as follows: <br />1. Cut back deck allowing 5 feet around the pool and <br />to angle back along a support beam as one moves <br />eastward - relocate stairs. <br />2. Upper deck (proposed and existing) allowed. <br />3. No further expansion of decks on lower levels. <br />Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />NOTE: Planning Commission member Taylor was excused from the meeting at <br />this time. <br />#1054 S SCHNEBLY <br />2555 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING 11:15 - <br />The <br />was <br />11:19 <br />Af f idavit of <br />noted. <br />Publication and Certificate of Mailing <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the <br />request for an after -the -fact variance to constrict <br />entrance walls in front yard which exceed the allowed <br />42110 In addition, if the entrance walls are considered <br />as an accessory structure, no accessory structures are <br />allowed in front yards, <br />Steven Schnebly was present for this matter and stated <br />that the Countryside Association has a covenant which <br />allows fences and knew a permit was not required for the <br />fence (which he assumed included the entrance walls),, <br />Bellows stated that she would ha e a problem approving <br />this application on the basis that it is already <br />constructed and noting a previous application in which <br />the proposed wall seemed to serve a much more useful <br />purpose yet was denied. <br />No one was present from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Goetten, seconded by McDonald, to <br />recommend approval. of the after -the -fact variance for <br />entrance walls noting that they are not. a safety hazard. <br />Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 2. Bellows and Callahan voted nay. <br />