Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1996 <br />February 15, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />In 1987 applicant received approval of a side, rear and height variance for major additions to <br />the existing residence. At that time applicant owned only the eastern portions of Lx)ts 1, 2 and <br />3, Block 2, Hillside Park. Since that time, the applicant has acquired the western portions of <br />the property. The new improvement will require only a side setback variance airf not a rear <br />setback variance as in the earlier review. This portion of the stnicture did not require a height <br />variance. <br />Review Exhibit I, Resolution #2318, Condition 4 on Page 3 and Exhibit J, there was a need for <br />septic repairs at the time of the major expansion and improvement of the residence m 1987. <br />According to the City’s files, there is no record of the applicant obtainmg a perimt to complete <br />the necessary repairs. Since that time, the property was approved for sewer with the rwent <br />Stubbs Bay sewer project. The applicant has not hooked up to sewer nor w^ it one of the <br />properties that was required to connect to sewer within sixteen months. Staff did rei^ll that he <br />ma/tA some minor repairs that seem to alleviate tte original problems with the septic system. <br />Now with the increase of bedroom use the applicant must connect to sewer. Review Exhibit D, <br />applicant’s letter notes that he will connect to sewer by June of this year. <br />Parcels 0020 and 0021 must be legally combined if the City is not to include the need for a rear <br />setback variance. The property is .8 acres. If legally combined, the total area <br />acres In the 1987 review, hardcover was at approximately 25 %. The property is allowed 35 % <br />as it is located within 500-1.000’ of the lakeshore. In a recent Stubbs ^y sewer project the <br />total property was recognized as one unit and assessed for one sewer unit. <br />Refer to Exhibit E, Mr. Perl has installed a storage shed that encro^hes within the <br />the west. The files reveal that a letter was sent to Mr. ^rl advising him of the need a <br />building permit and that it appeared the shed was encroaching into the west property. Mr. wrl <br />never obtained the necessary building permit. The budding remains as a nonconforming <br />structure. In recent applications, the City did not take acUon when there appeared to be <br />accessory structures tliat encroached into an adjacent property. It has been our policy to allow <br />property owners to deal with the problem. The size of the structure required a buUdmg permit <br />and the applicant was notified of that need and of the encroachment. A condition of this <br />approval must be that the shed is relocated to a conforming setback on the property. Tlwre is <br />also an exterior storage violation on the property that must be removed either by replacmg <br />equipment within storage sheds or garage or by removing the various items from the property. <br />Statement of Hardship <br />Some of the hardships noted in Resolution #2318 can stUl hold true for current applicatmn. <br />Note applicant has remedied the need for a rear setback variance by purchasing the remamder <br />of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and increasing the size of the parcel to 1.6 acres. <br />1 <br />!