07-18-1988 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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