Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORCNO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD MARCH 15, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE #1804 - CONT. <br />Bellows noted that the comparable was suggested by Mabusth, who <br />was referring to comparable view situations, not structure sizes. <br />She noted it Is not their Intent to preserve a 180 degree view for <br />all property owners. <br />Dave Runkel submitted a letter and exhibits. He indicated because <br />of the allowed height per code and the difference In elevations, <br />the residence could be built at a 40’ difference from the Runkel’s. <br />He proposed that the residence could meet the average lakeshore <br />setback and *!i required setbacks, and noted to approve a variance <br />the Planning Commission must have a unique situation with Justified <br />hardships. He questioned the Impact of the additional hardcover on <br />the property and the impact on drainage in the area. He stated they <br />may have a problem with dock rights as the property only has 25’- <br />30’ of lakeshore. He added, in the past there has not been a dock <br />for this property. <br />Cohen felt the situation was created by <br />adjacent lot with the platted corridor. <br />the aberration of the <br />Bellows stated the : i tuation exists because of the platted corridor <br />to the lake, which the City would not allow to be platted by <br />today’s standards. She reiterated that if the average lakeshore <br />were taken from the Kauffman property instead this proposal would <br />meet the setback. She added the owner has a hardship created by the <br />lot configuration. She felt Runkel was asking for an Impossible <br />situation by asking that future potential views be preserved In <br />case of an addition to the Runkel home, and citing historical uses <br />of the property. <br />Dave Runkel said he made the current owner aware of the unusual <br />situation prior to the property being sold. <br />Mr. Amundson, 2697 Ethel Avenue, presented the Commission with a <br />copy of his torrens property title which states applicant’s <br />property shall have the right to use his dock. <br />Landsledel explained the owner Is also a builder who Intends to <br />preserve the natural setting of the property. He noted a dock Is <br />not planned. He proposed that the higher elevations, natural <br />vegetation and growth will screen the house from the Runkel <br />property and felt the views will not be Impacted. He said the <br />applicant is building the house for himself.