Laserfiche WebLink
July 16, 1980 <br />Jack Rhode (#546) <br />1410 Bohns Point Road <br />VARIANCE <br />Page 3 <br />^^546 <br />11 <br />2. The plan indicates an open parking space within 5 feet of the <br />Becker property line enc’*oaching both the required 10 foot setback <br />(yard area) for parking. Section 38.201, and the 10 foot walkway <br />easement. ^There should .e no reason why this can not be eliminated. <br />3. The plan proposed is for a larger house than that proposed in <br />Item 210. This plan requires a 17.5% variance for 3,414 s.f. too <br />much hardcover within the 75-250 ft. setback area. No hardcover <br />variance was considered in Roger's applications. See Exhibit 17C <br />for the Planning Commission's 1977 hardcover review of the first <br />Rhode application. This point was not clearly made in Resolution <br />No. 851, although the final determination in finding 14 was idenviral <br />with the Planning Commission's position. <br />The 1980 plan increases the house size and overall hardcover 1,850 s.f. <br />more than the 1977 plan. If that much hardcover were removed from the <br />current plan, then the hardcover variance situation would be the same <br />as it was in 1977. In any case, a hardship should be demonstrated in <br />order to grant any variance. <br />Rhode argues for a quick "renewal" of variances issued in 1977 per his <br />suggested amendments to Resolution No. 851; see Exhibit 15. <br />Becker has sold his house on a contract, but continues to argue for no <br />residence or for one located behind line A - A. See his position in <br />Exhibit 16. <br />I suggest Planning Commission members review the case history for <br />background and concentrate discussion on the new information provided <br />with this application. <br />1. I recommend a finding that comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances <br />and health considerations such as sewer and nearby lot development <br />have or have not changed since 1977. If not, then there should be <br />no change in the buildability status of the lot. From my vantage <br />as planner, I know of no such change. <br />2. I recommend a finding that the new plan does or does not conform to <br />the 75 foot lakeshore setback. <br />3. I recommend a finding that the new plan does or does not conform to <br />the 10 foot side and 30 foot rear yard setbacks of the LR-IB district.