Laserfiche WebLink
NiaUTBS OF TBB PXJUnilFG COMUSSIOH MEBTlilS JUIRt 19* 1989 <br />" t <br />SOBISG FILE fl415~HI]IIPIIIIBT OOniMUSD <br />lar^e and 8U99ested ^ha^ ^hey be reduced to allow hardcover in <br />the 75-2S0* zone to revaln unchanged. <br />It was moved by Planning Commisaioner Hanson# seconded by <br />Planning Commissioner Brown# to recommend approval of the <br />hardcover and average lakeshore setback variance to construct <br />only the decks# subject to no net increase in hardcover. The <br />hardship in this matter is the need for the applicants to replace <br />an unsafe# deteriorating deck. There was discussion regarding <br />the fact that the actual location of the neighboring house <br />structure had not been determined. Planning Commissioner Hanson <br />withdrew his motion due to the fact that the average lakeshore <br />setback had not been documented in light of applicant's discovery <br />regarding the location of the neighboring property. <br />It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson# seconded by <br />Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of the average <br />lakeshore setback to construct a deck only with no net increase <br />in hardcover. Gaffron noted that the hardcover percentage being <br />approved# 37.It# would not include the future pool since the pool <br />was not being approved at this time. Motion# Ayes*4# Bellows# <br />Nay do to insufficient information. Notion passed. (Planning <br />Commissioner Cohen departed at this time) <br />•1416 JKFFRET BOCLBS <br />302S SIXTH AVBHOB NORTH <br />VARIAHCB <br />PUBLIC HBARIHG 9s55 P.N. - 10x00 P.N. <br />Mr. Bccles was present for this matter. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were <br />duly noted. <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaf'Jron <br />explained that Mr. Eccles was requesting a side setback va- xance <br />to construct an attached 2 car garage. The applicant currently <br />has an attached one car garage. <br />Mr. Eccles indicated that his neighbor, Jim Swanson, had <br />provided a letter stating that he had no objection to the <br />proposed garage being 11.1* from his property line. <br />Acting Chairperson Bellows asked the applicant to explain <br />his hardship that requires him to have a garage 30* wide. Mr. <br />Eccles replied th/'.t he had a boat, motorcycle and many other <br />items that required storage. In addition# the existing garage <br />leaks. <br />Planning Commissioner Hanson stated that in his opinion, the <br />applicant really had no hardship for requiring such a large <br />garage. <br />Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he had a problem <br />with the aspect of an attached garage as opposed to a detached