Laserfiche WebLink
^ r; <br />MIMmS OF THB PIAMHIHG CCMHISSIOH MBBTIHG HELD NET 4, 1987 <br />#1141 SARLTON GBNPLBR/HiVRIA IVBS <br />1955 FE6KRNBSS POINT ROAD <br />VARIANCBS <br />PUBLIC HBARIB6 9s34-9;57 <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing <br />was noted. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the <br />request for hardcover, lakeshore setback, and average <br />lAJ^®shore setback variances to construct a tuckunder <br />garage and ground level deck. He reviewed the following <br />facts: <br />Hardcover: <br />0-75' - 14,2% existing, 19.9% proposed <br />"^5—250* — 37,7% existing, 32.5% proposed <br />(net decrease overall of 121 s.f. on property) <br />Structure: <br />a) Proposed 350 s.f. deck, ground level, all <br />within 0-75' setback zone. <br />b) Proposed 1-story plus tuckunder garage on <br />street side of house. Proposal is to removal <br />existing garage/shed/driveway and replace with <br />new driveway. <br />Karlton Gempler and Maria Ives were present for this <br />matter. Mr. Gempler showed the proposed plans noting <br />that initially they proposed a 2nd story addition in the <br />application which they have now eliminated. <br />Taylor questioned the afforded lake view from the <br />proposed ground level deck due to the trees and shrubs. <br />Mr. Gempler stated that one tree has to be removed <br />because it has dutch elm and he plans to cut back the <br />existing shrubs. <br />Applicant was advised that a conditional use permit is <br />required for any grading within the 0-75' and that any <br />trees in excess of 6" may not be removed without a <br />permit issued by City staff and must be replaced with <br />like replacements (with exception of dead trees). <br />Planning Commission discussed any alternatives of 350 <br />s.f. deck in the 0-75 zone. <br />Mr. Gempler suggested the use of sand or wood chips used <br />under deck with no plastic allowed. <br />Assistant Zoning Administratrator Gaffron noted that <br />there were two instances on Fagerness Point in which <br />this was approved, however. Council has consistently <br />rejected this alternative in the past two years.