Laserfiche WebLink
Ith <br />in <br />RKQl t ST lOH COOCIL ACTIONDATE: Novenitjejr T. ITEM NO.; ^Drpartmntl Apfinmil: <br />Smm P OaffrM <br />Titir PUmaf A Zoeiaf <br />AdRMiii^iittor Rcrkmti:\Slfndjk Swtfewt <br />/nnn <br />Pal wr^fc lsTI Cats® Pw« Ro«I Viriiiice <br />Zooinit ni>frict: LR IC Singfe Fumlv l ake^Jiofe Rcs*Jc«ul. . . «:rc <br />Aoolkaliaii- Attcr-the fact vtrufvei. for coiSirictioo of Moragc shed kKiicd S‘ from <br />H«^>rel»nc. <ariciuWy t 3 5 ’ fn>m .ak kM line, and comtitutins 120 ».f. of hardcover in the O* <br />75 ’ zone atere no hardcover is allowesl. <br />lia dT Eshihitii <br />A Planning Coranussioo Mimnes 1017 94 <br />B - Nvifitc of Planning CommissKm ActKai 10/1M 94 <br />C - Mcito? and Exhibits ol U) 12 94 <br />Ih^niSNioii <br />Please rcvww the memo and exhibits of KVI2 94 Brietly. applicant cominicicd a I0’xl2’ <br />storage vhed near the lakeslwfc. replacing a svmKwhai larger detenorated shed m the same <br />kcaiL Ihc consin^tion was ds>ne wittK.HU a permit, and in vmlation of code sectiom <br />regarding hardcover, smicture setback from shoreline, oml the mm-amtomimg use section. <br />The applicant requests to leave the shed as is in its current IcKaiion, ciimg a number of reasons <br />for the request in his letter of Oetdser lOtb. <br />Plamiinu Commission Recommcndalion <br />Planmnc Commission reviewed this application at their Octobei 17:h meeting and on a vote of <br />7-0 recommcffiled denial of the request, noting the lack of accepnbie hardship or justiticaiioii <br />for granting of variaiKcs. and noting that aif.nate UKutions ..xist on the propeny where the <br />structure could meet code requirements. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff concurs with Planning Commission that the variances should be demed based on lack of <br />acceptable hardship or justification. Staff further recommends that the applicant be require o <br />remove the structure to a location meeting ctxle requirements. <br />h <br />it <br />*