Laserfiche WebLink
MIHDTBS OF THB PLAHIIIHG COMUSSIGB <br />#1106 POTAS COflTIHI <br />: IH;TlllG HELD MARCH 16, 1987 <br />*:■ <br />d) The existence of a drainage manhole in the <br />driveway which accepts a portion of the driveway <br />runoff into a 55 gallon drum which would reduce the <br />impact of hardcover on the property by collecting a <br />portion of the runoff and letting it soak into the <br />ground. <br />e) Applicant feels that a reduction in size or <br />change in location of the proposed addition, in <br />order to decrease average setback encroachment, will <br />not serve his purpose and intent for the addition. <br />He contends that the neighbor to the south has trees <br />which already effect the lake view and that his <br />proposed addition will not significantly impact the <br />neighbor's view. <br />Mr. Potas noted another area in which hardcover could be <br />removed in the 75-250' zone for an approximate overall <br />decrease in hardcover to 42-43%. <br />It was noted that the affected neighbor to the south has <br />been in Florida since November, and it is questionable <br />whether he is aware of this proposal. Assistant Zoning <br />Administrator Gaffron stated that the neighbor has been <br />sent a notice and the notice has not been received back <br />as undeliverable. It is assumed that the notice has <br />been forwarded to the Florida address. <br />Bellows felt that the tree issue brought up by applicant <br />was not a valid consideration, that the addition is too <br />tight creating a precedent if allowed. <br />Hanson felt reluctant to recommend approval without some <br />comment from the affected neighbor. He felt that <br />another plan could be architecturally accomplished. <br />Taylor felt that that the intrusion of 1 or 2 feet would <br />be minor in relation to the actual view of the lake and <br />that the applicant has been cooperative in reducing the <br />hardcover. <br />Johnson agreed with Taylor's comments. <br />No one was present from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Brown, to table chis <br />application pending response from the affected neighbor. <br />Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 4. Motion fails. Taylor felt it <br />unfair to applicant to table for this reason at this <br />second review, whereas this issue was not mentioned at <br />the first review. Johnson felt that it was reasonable <br />to assume that the neighbor has been notified and two <br />months is sufficient time to respond.