11-10-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Date Application Received: 12<1(M)2 Date AppUcatioa Considered as Complete: 8-26-03 60-Day Review Period Espires: 10-26-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City AdminisTator From: Date: Mike Gaf&on, Planning Director October 17,2003 Subject:^02-2858 Scott Standa, 2659 Casco Point Road - Variance (After-the-Fact) - Public Hearing Zoniog District: Lot Area: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2-acre min. 0.29 acre (12,815 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests after-the-fact hardcover and setback variances to allow the reconstruction of a deck located at the shoreline attached to an existing accessory building. V'ariances required include: 1. Structure within 0-75' setback zone, exteitding out over the shoreline (cantilevered 2-3' past the OHWL). 2. Structure encroaching within 1 foot of side lot line. 3. Hardcover in 0-75' zone of 16.24% (no changes proposed). 4. Encroachment of average lakeshore setback. Sta^Recommendation: Staff recommends denial If this reconstruction had been applied for before-the-fact, the encroachment over the shoreline and within 1 foot of the side lot line would likely not have been approved, in raff s opinion. List of Exhibits A • Application B - Letter of Request 11/4/02 C - Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D - Submitted Deck Plans E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Correspondence 2001-2003 G - Photos H - Property Owners List I - Nei^bor Acknowledgement Form J - Plat map Background In June 2001 Building Inspector Marc Da%*is found that the deck adjacent to the lakeshore accessory building had been replaced, and he advised the owner that a permit was needed for such work. In July 2001 the owner applied for a building p ermit and was advised that because the work was within 75' of the shoreline a permit could not be issued and it would have to be removed or a variance application would have to be filed to see if Council would allow it to remain. On August 14, 2001 the owner filed an incomplete variance application, lacking most of the necessary' information to process it. This matter remained as an open violation file and the next communication between applicant and City was in October 2002, whic’.i resulted in a new variance application being filed in December 2002, but still lacking an up-to-date surv ey. After a flurry of discussion between City and applicant in May'June 2003, a survey was submined and the application considered as complete in late August 2003. ■ • rMliiX