Laserfiche WebLink
MIMDTES OP THE PIANNIIIG COMMISSIOH TIH6 OCTOBER 3, 1988 <br />ZOHIMG PILE «1341-ZIESMER COMTI1I1 <br />was not considered a lakeshore lot. Planning Commission member <br />Hanson inquired about conforming with the front yard setback. <br />Gaffron stated that the width variance was the only requirement <br />involved with this application. <br />Mr. Anderson inquired as to whether the Plannino Commission <br />had any sight regulations that would apply in this matter. <br />Kelley responded that the only requirements the Planning <br />Commission could regulate would be covered under the average <br />lakeshore setback requirements. However, due to the fact that <br />this was not lakeshore property, that would not apply. Planning <br />Commission member Brown stated that a conditional use permit, <br />such as the Woodhill Golf Course could regulate sight <br />interference, Mabusth reminded the Planning Commission that <br />specific requirements could be included with a variance as well. <br />Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Ziesmer if he would be willing to <br />comply with the 15* relocation should the Planning Commission <br />make such a recommendation. Mr. Ziesmer stated that the 15* <br />would not make a difference in the view of Mr. Anderson. The <br />exact location of the new residence was shown as it would relate <br />to Mr. Anderson*s property. Kelley stated that the 15* would <br />make a difference. <br />There were no comments from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded <br />by Pla^iiing Commiisslon member Moos, to recommend approval of this <br />application, per staff recommendations. Motion, Ayess=6, Nays«=0, <br />Motion passed. <br />#1342 DAVID 4 VALERIE PETERSOH <br />1125 HORTH ARM DRIVE <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING 9:52 P.M. - 9:56 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were <br />duly noted. <br />Mr. Peterson was present for this matter. <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron <br />explained that Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were requesting a side <br />setback variance to construct a detached garage. The applicants <br />are proposing to place the garage 1* from the side property line <br />from the southwest corner of the garage. The driveway comes in <br />North Arm Drive. There are no hardcover problems, the <br />only problem is the side setback. <br />Gaffron asked Mr. Peterson what his reasons were for placing <br />the garage so close to the lot line. Mr. Peterson responded that <br />the driveway is 150* long and is difficult to back into or back