Laserfiche WebLink
• -W ’ -‘^MSliriL <br />Memorandum <br />‘ ;,'J <br />Date: <br />To: <br />From: <br />RE: <br />April 14.2005 <br />Planning Commission <br />Janice Gundlach, City Planner <br />(VOS-3089, Theodore A Deborah Rozeboom, 2967 Casco Point Road <br />After the report was written and he packet was copied, the Building Inspector informed <br />staff that the existing porch on the lake side of the home needs to be completely rebuilt. <br />Staff was under the impression that it was an existing seasonal porch with walls where <br />only improvements were needed, such as insulation and windows, to make it living space, <br />which apparently isn’t the case due to the age of the structure. <br />Because the qjplicant needs to remove die existing walls and construct a new roof to <br />siqiport the hot tub, the average lakeshore setback variance needs to include this. <br />Cunendy, the report only requires the average lakeshore setback variance to put the hot <br />tub on the roof The recommendation regarding this variance needs to include rebuilding <br />of the walls and roof Staff would support approval of this variance as no ftuther <br />encroachment is proposed and it will be constructed in the same location. <br />Also, the variance necessary for the addition proposed to connect the existing house and <br />detached garage should have more detail^ stipulations incase the building code <br />requirements raise unforeseen issues. For example, the building code will require that the <br />detached garage have a foundation that the proposed addition can attach to. If a <br />foundation does not exist and the qipKcant chroses to rebuild the garage to make the <br />addition confonn to the building co^, the garage must then meet the 10 ’ setback from <br />the aide lot line (and of course 30’ from the road). This should be included in the <br />recommendation for the requested side yard setback variance. <br />life m .* ■ •• -'i Vj <br />- . ■ •• <br />1 <br />Mill