Laserfiche WebLink
MIHUTBS OP THE PIAHNIIIG COMMISSIOH MBBTIHG mtfJ> JULY 18, 1988 <br />CRYSTAL BAY ROAD IMPROVEMENT-CONTINUED <br />Kelley stated that this was the first time since this matter has come to <br />his attention, even though it has been a live issue for a year. <br />Hanson asked whether the group of neighbors had a plan for an <br />alternative access to their properties, and if a homeowner's association <br />existed to take responsibility for the road. Hanson noted that apparently <br />there is none, as the City has been plowing the road. Mr. Schupp stated <br />that he had met several times with Public Works Director Gerhardson and <br />finally wrote a letter to the Mayor which is why this matter was now before <br />the Planning Commission. He asked for direction from the Planning <br />Commission to get this matter resolved. Mabusth told Mr. Schupp to contact <br />her. Mr. Kelley asked Mabusth who would fund this. Mabusth stated that <br />the City is proceeding with this as a City project. <br />It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Kelley, to table the matter until <br />the residents could work with the City to work up a proposal to bring back <br />in front of the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes»6, NaysQ, Motion passed. <br />#1303 ALLAH RBSABBK <br />1989 FA6BRHBSS POINT ROAD <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were noted. <br />Mr. Rezabek and Mr. Fisher were both present for this matter. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that she was using Hr. Fisher's <br />survey for the presentation of this matter. Kelley asked if Mr. Rezabek <br />agreed with the use of this survey. Mabusth visited the site in (question <br />to determine where the designated lot line was in conjunction with the <br />location of the fence. It was established that the reason for the fence <br />being located 1/2 foot to a foot on the Fisher property was due to a recent <br />torrens action where the Courts determined the location of the shared lot <br />line. Judicial markers have been placed, indicating the actual lot line. <br />In so doing, it was determined that the Rezabek fence encroached on the <br />Fisher property 12" on the west side and 6" on the east side. Mr. Rezabek <br />explained the situation and stated that he would like the fence that was <br />torn down restored on his property and would like to move that portion of <br />the fence still on the Fisher property to his property. <br />Mr. Kelley explained that the job of the Planning Commission is to <br />approve or deny the variance to relocate the existing fence and allow that <br />portion that was torn down to be installed on Rezabek's side of the lot <br />line. Mr. Rezabek expressed his displeasure with the City in that they did <br />not inform him of the need of a variance to move the fence. The existing <br />Ordinance states that there cannot be a fence of any kind within 75' of the <br />Lake. In light of the Ordinance, Mr. Rezabek would only be permitted to <br />install approximately 20' of the fence since that is the amount of property <br />that does not lie within the protected lakeshore setback area. <br />Mr. Kelley asked for the hardship in this case. Mr. Rezabek stated <br />that the hardship was that the fence existed at the time he purchased the