Laserfiche WebLink
Date Application Recrivcd: 12-I9-02 <br />Date Application Considered ■« Complete: S>2643 <br />60-Day l^view Period Lipires: 10-2fr-03 <br />From: <br />Dale: <br />Subject: <br />Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners <br />Ron Moorsc. Cily Administrator <br />Mike GafTron. Planning Director <br />October 17.2U03 <br /><102-2858 Scott Standa. 2659 Casco Point Road • Variance (Aftcr-the-Fact) <br />• Public Hearing <br />ZoninK District: <br />Lot Area: <br />LR-IC Single Family Lakcshorc Residential, I '2-acrc min. <br />0.29 acre (12.815 s.f.) <br />£T. <br />Application Summary: Applicant requests aAer-the-fact hardcov er and setback variances to <br />allow the reconstruction ofa deck located at the shoreline attached to an existing accessory <br />building. Variances required include: <br />1. Structure within 0-75* setback zone, extending out over the shoreline (cantilev ered 2-3* <br />past theOHWL). <br />2. Structure encroaching within I foot of side lot line. <br />3. Hardcover in 0-75’ zone of l6.24"o (no changes proposed). <br />4. Encroachment of average lakeshore setback <br />Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial. If this reconstruction had been applied for <br />before-the-fact, the encroachment over the shoreline and w ithin I foot of the side lot line <br />would likely not have been approved, in stalTs opinion. <br />Lbt of Exhibits <br />A - Application <br />B - Letter of Request 11/4 02 <br />C - Existing & Proposed Suney/Sitc Plan <br />D • Submitted Deck Plans <br />E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations <br />F • Correspondence 2001-2003 <br />G - Photos <br />H • Properly Owners List <br />I - Neighbor Acknowledgement Form <br />J - Plat map <br />Background <br />In June 2001 Building Inspector Marc Davis found that the deck adjacent to the lakeshore accessory <br />building had been replaced, and he advised the owner that a permit was needed for such work. In <br />July 2001 the owner applied for building pennit and w as advised that because the work was within <br />75* of the shoreline a permit could not be issued and it would have to be removed or a vanance <br />application would have to be filed to see if Council would allow it to remain <br />On August 14. 2001 the owner filed an incomplete vanance application, lackir.g most of the <br />necessary information to process it. This maner remained as an open violation file and the next <br />communication between applicant and City was in October 2002, w hich resulted in a new v ariance <br />application being filed in December 2002, but still lacking an up-to-date survey. Afier a flurry of <br />discussion betw een City and applicant in May June 2003, a surv ey w as submitted and the application <br />considered as cor «'!ete in late A igust 2003.