10-17-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1988, either District .gger the ct would ping the lid like g o£ the Liability Attorney iedicated that the District Id should 1 years? ^eloper's seconded roval of eiaent by ith City :hat the .988 City ved four LI years, .fics of that the it would alutely*. ling were Mr. Jay stributed Bsission*' le Public Gaffron •rhe-fact nances to is within MIKO^ OP THE PLANHING O SSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1988ZONING FILE #1323-PAPAS CONTINUEDthe 0-75' lakeshore setback area. An average lakeshore setback variance is also required. There is a garage on the east side of the property with a deck above it and the property to the west has a second story deck. Mr. Papas's deck will extend 10* beyond the average setback line. The existing house is located in the 0-75* setback zone. Without the deck and excluding the paved road, hardcover is approximately 20%; with the deck it increases approximately 200 s.f. and would increase hardcover to 27.4%. The hardcover existing within the 75-250' zone is 39.6% and will not change. All existing hardcover is legitimate (house, garage, driveway) and there are no reasonable feasible removals. Planning Commission member Cohen expressed the need for a survey. He was sympathetic to the fact that the survey would cost nearly as much as the project, but felt a precedent would be set should an exception to this requirement be made. Cohen suggested tabling this matter to allow the applicant time to submit a survey and avoid having to resubmit the $150.00 fee. Planning Commission member Hanson explained to Mr. Reiser that at this time, the Planning Commission was not denying Mr. Papas's application, they were merely requesting compliance with the required application documents. Mr. Reiser stated that at the present time,, the deck was an eyesore and had remained half finished all summer. Planning Commission member Johnson questioned the pictures Mr. Reiser submitted. Mr. Reiser explained that the pictures showed neighboring properties with decks extending more toward the lake than Mr. Papas's deck. Planning Commission member Bellows reiterated Hanson's explanation of documents required with the submittal of a variance application. Mr. Reiser asked if Mr. Papas would then have to spend $600.00 to have a survey dene? Bellows replied that it would not be necessary to do another survey if there was an existing survey. Relley stated that the certified property owners list was also not included with the application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the list must have been misplaced by the owner. City personnel could verify that envelopes and labels with neighboring property addresses had been received with the application. Gaffron verified that the notices were legally sent, but the list indicating those persona was missing. Johnson stated that ho could understand the confusion on applicant's behalf regarding the variances. However, had Mr. Papas applied for a permit to build the deck he would have been informed of all the requireme.-tts. There were no comments frem the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. V .■' \¥.: : V r- . ■' -t.'... ■ ■' i' *.■* ■; V :•' V ■ MINUTEZONING F It by Plann to allov Motion, #1324 MR 1099 TAM CONDITIO PUBLIC B The noted. The represe] Dredging Asa that th< excavatd designa would o create width, of the i applica Watershe subject areas. Ch< about s( was sti. time thi Pl2mnin< around wetland and Icia^ Mr 15" dee Present project maintai] change : Th« and the It by Plan applica a wetli f