12-08-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Date ApplicatioD Received: 12-1IM)2 Date Application Considered as Complete: 8-26-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 10-26-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director October 17,2003 Subject:#02-2858 Scott Standa, 2659 Casco Point Road - Variance (After-the-Fact) - Public Hearing Zoning 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 e.xisting accessory building. Variances required include: 1. Structure within 0-75* setback zone, extending 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. Staff 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 staffs 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 permit 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 vahance 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, which resulted in a new variance application being filed in December 2002, but still lacking an up-to-date survey. After a flurry of discussion between City and applicant in May/June2003, a survey was submitted and the application considered as complete in late August 2003.