08-19-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE Oa' 3NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 (#7 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued) During public comments, neighbor on the south side, Ron Grundeen, said his concern was with a second aory Peterson informed Grundeen that his views will be changed regardless of what is built on this property Grundeen said he w ould like to maintain the views he now enjoys The obstruction of tree foliage was noted during the summer months Lindquist reviewed the location of the existii^ residence at 15’ in front of the average setback and a proposed 24' to the enclosed porch This does not include the deck at 22'. Neighbor, Todd Theilmann, commented that the foliage was not an issue but was concerned over a "leap frog" affect with structures moving forward He acknowledged that the placement of the garage and play area more into the lot would assist in alleviating an unsafe condition. Peterson commented that Casco Point neighborhood had many average lakeshore setback variances and saw it only increasing with more intensive building This particular application becomes a bigger issue with the element of new construction Peterson noted the possibility of the need to remove the boat house on the property. John Hurd said no mention had been made of the boat house during the designing of the house He said he placed stakes showing the new home construction which he feels is less offensive from a view impact standpoint than the current residence Hurd said the home now has 3 sub basements, and it is their intent to build the huine as hould be rather than add on a further remodeling addition, which would be a hardshi, ,aid the boat house should not be part of the consideration and asked if there was any mention of boat house removal in the cede Peterson said the boat house becomes an issue when principal structure is to be removed and new improvements involve variances Bill Miller. 2691 Casco Point Road, reported that the Hurd's responded to the neighbors' concern of visual impact by architecturally repositioning the home and staking out to show the lesser impact He disagreed with Peterson’s assessment that the boat house would have to be eliminated. The code allows for boat houses to be upgraded through the variance procedure as he had completed for his property The boat house is not to be improved. Miller said the Hurd's hardship is in the need to raze the home but the possibility of removal of the boat house only increases the value of their home presenting an inordinate amount of hardship upon the Hurd's. Peterson responded that in new construction, this is the time the City has to rectify past mistakes that are grandfathered in. He noted other agencies also do not allow such boat houses.