08-17-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Tos Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse/ City Administrator From:Jeanne A, Mabusth, Building 6 Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: August 12, 1992 #1737 Richard Hollander, 680 North Arm Drive - After-the-Fact Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Additional Exhibits p - Planning Commission Minutes 5/18/92 Meeting Q - Staff Letter 7/24/92 R - Staff Hardcover Sketch Also included application information for May 18th Planning Commission meeting Status of Application At the May 18, 1992 meeting of the Planning Commission, the application was tabled to provide applicant additional time to submit a revised plan reflecting concerns expressed by Planning Commission members. Applicant was encouraged to meet with staff to review revisions to proposal that would reduce hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. Applicant was also asked to consider additional removals in the 75-250' setback area. Application #1737 was brought in as an after-the-fact application and involved a lakeshore deck and gazebo structure located approximately 14' from the shoreline. Structures were installed without the benefit of a building permit. Such structures would have required variance approvals based on the ordinance in place since 1974 dealing with lakeshore setbacks/hardcover and average lakeshore setback standards. Applicant contends that the structures were there prior to the 100 year storms of 1987 and were rebuilt as part of the storm damage repair. The staff memo of May 14th reviews the lengthy history of the various permits or land use applications involving the property. The storm damage repair permit specifically allowed the repair of the bank with the installation of the boulder retaining walls, reconstruction of the decks to the lakeside of the house and reconstruction of stairs. The building permit did not specify anything beyond the scope of the original permit issued in 1982, After listening to the concerns expressed by various members of the Planning Commission, the applicant was asked to submit a revised plan that addressed these concerns. The City has heard no further from Mr. Hollander since that review. A letter was sent advising applicant of the need to prepare a revised plan for your August 17th meeting. The City did not hear from Mr. Hollander by the deadline date. Staff made contact with Mr. Indritz, Mr. Hollander's attorney, who advised they would be submitting an amended plan Tuesday, August 11th. As of this