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 Lots 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 and not a rear <br />setback variance as in the earlier review. This portion of the strucmre 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 in 1987. <br />According to the City's files, there is no record of the applicant obtaining a permit to complete <br />the necessary repairs. Since that time, the property was approved tor sewer with the recent <br />Snibbs Bay sewer project. The applicant has not hooked up to sewer nor was it one of the <br />properties that was required to connect to sewer within sixteen months. Staff did recall that he <br />made some minor repairs that seem to alleviate the 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 would be 1.6 <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 Bay sewer project the <br />total property was recognized as one unit and assessed for one sewer unit. <br />Refer to E.xhibit E, Mr. Perl has installed a storage shed that encroaches within the properly to <br />the west. The files reveal that a letter was sent to Mr. Perl advising him of the need for a <br />building permit and that it appeared the shed was encroaching into the west property. Mr. Perl <br />never obtained the necessary building permit. The building remains as a nonconforming <br />strucmre. In recent applications, the City did not take action when there appeared to be <br />accessory strucmres that encroached into an adjacent property. It has been our policy to allow <br />property owners to deal with the problem. The size of the strucmre required a building 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. There is <br />also an exterior storage violation on the property that must be removed either by replacing <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 still hold true for current application. <br />Note applicant has remedied the need for a rear setback variance by purchasing the remainder <br />of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and increasing the size of the parcel to 1.6 acres.