Laserfiche WebLink
K. !'. I'onson, ('itv V’ninistrater <br />!'. Olson, Asst. Zoninr; Vbiinistrator <br />u <br />ijnv.v.r:: <br />October Jfi, IP”6 <br />t'.Virren Orten!'la«! - J7P^’ Casco Point P.nail <br />\arianco - Ix)t iViclth, SiJc Setback, kakeshore Setback <br />Connarctl to VI join inf ’. Dwellings <br />Mr. Ortcn))lad is requostin." variances Tor construction of a nc^v dwell inn. on this <br />lot vv'hich nrcscntly contains a vacant cott. .;e. llie nronosod hone is sinplc story <br />witii a walkout basenent on tlic lake side. Tlie lot is 60' wide by approximatclv <br />30S' doer>. hot area sliyhtly exceeds the niniimm 1/2 acre rcqiiirenent . <br />Ibe proposal shows a 44' wide buildinr, with a 10' nortij side setback and a 6' soutli <br />side setback (10' ninir.nnn is required). 'Hie hoiuse is staked on site and s’lown on <br />the survey to I’c locatal approximately 10' closer to the lake than the south neigh ­ <br />bor and IT)'-20' closer to tlie lake than the^north neiylibor. Both adjacent neighbors <br />hav'e called tlie staff to voice concern over tlie location of the buildinp as ree.ards <br />side setbacks and positioning ahead of their hones. <br />I see no nroblen with the lot wi«lth setback as new constnujtion iiere would clininatc <br />the old vacant cabin; however, I ouestion the need for anv other variances on new <br />construction. <br />Variances; hot ’Vidth - 40', 40" ; <br />Side Setback - 4 ’, 40 “ <br />34.20] - construction not pemitted to extend closer to the lake than t!ie adjacent <br />buildinqs. <br />PLANNING 0n^^^ISSIQN MniTTING - Novenfcer 15, 1976 <br />Sugj»ested applicant si4)mit revised plans which would meet required side yard setback <br />with a lakeshore setback that would meet the average setback of the dwellings <br />located cm the lots on either side of this subject property. Neighbors on either <br />side of this property objected to variances. <br />STAFF - November 24, 1976 <br />No new proposal lias been submitted as of today. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MI-HTING - December 6, 1976 <br />Cbnmission reviewed three plans submitted by Mr. Ortenlilad: <br />1. <br />n <br />^ • <br />Original Plan - proposed house closer to lake than adjoining neighbors,10' 5 <br />4' side yard setback requested. <br />Revised Plan - proposed house set back to average of two adjoining <br />neiglibors, 9' .md 7' side yard setback requested. <br />Remodel existing house - 2b' existing, 14' setback requested. <br />Neiglibors objected to side yard variances. Comnission also felt that house could be <br />designed to meet setback requirements as no hardship was demonstrated. Some of the <br />Planning Commissiai memliers felt remodeling of the existing structure might solve <br />the problem. The Zoning Administrator informed tlie Planning Comnission and applicant <br />that an addition of more than 50^ of the value of the house would constitute a new <br />structure. Tabled until next meeting to enable applicant to decide which plan he <br />wanted to submit. <br />d <br />I i