10-17-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1988 !d their ot think B runoff visible h any of nterna 1 sedr is lo other hat the to the rould be tically e added that the house to property iing the 1 family ered the it would >ossible Lmit the .easing, matter, s to the 9 to the not be i of the Low them ief it of lid then r stated “season :t that a more Purdy . Their I house. t into a lOt give at they >ath and roa the tiat the I. Hrs. a« they S r ■n.'. VI r ?• ... frM MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988ZONING FILS #1311 CONTINUED discovered there was a greater need for the 3“season porch and bathroom, rather than enhancing the master bedroom. Bellows stated that the Planning Commission members ha';e a real problem dealing with the concept of a 3-season porch. They look at them as being an addition to the house. Mrs. Purdy stated that they agreed with that. Cohen added that the bathroom only confirms that. Bellows stated that it was more difficult to approve that than a screened porch. Mrs. Purdy asked why. Bellows replied that the 3-season porch was adding to the floor structure and mass of the house, and they are asking to do the addition in an area where they should not be building at*all. She added that if the applicants were requesting approval of a screened porch, the Planning Commission would have an easier time with the deliberation; a 3-season porch is in fact an addition to the house. Kelley inquired as to the original size of the house when it was purchased by the Purdys. Mrs. Purdy stated that the only addition to the house in 15 years was the addition to the front. Cohen stated that he empathized with applicants' situation, but he felt that there was no demonstrated hardship and was afraid of setting a precedent. Mr. Purdy stated that in their proposed 5 year plan they intended to add two larger, very permanent structures to the house than what they were now seeking. What they are requesting should carry them through the next 6 years until their children are grown. Mrs. Purdy added that when they were before the Planning Commission in 1985, they were given the reverse precedent-setting argument and were told it did not matter what had previously been done, each case was looked upon individually. Gaffron interpreted Cohen's comments to mean that if the Purdys were allowed to build further lakeward from the existing house, that would be unusual for Fagerness Point Road. All other additions done in that area over the last 10 to 15 years have been done behind the line of the existing house. Bellows stated that that was the problem, especially since there were other alternatives. Mr. Purdy stated that if hardcover near the lake was a concern they had a storage structure and a kennel area, now classified as hardcover, that they would be willing to remove. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Brown, seconded by Kelley, to recommend denial of the variances for #1311, based upon setting a precedent for encroaching into the lakeshore setback area. Kelley added that he felt there were other alternatives. Bellows stated that she could not find a hardship in this matter. Applicant added that the hardship is that the house is 80 years old and they have exceeded its capacity. There is no other plan that would allow them as much useful space as the plan they now proposed. Gaffron V r 4 e. •• j / !-• t:: ■ .> . "V ' •• ■ a * : k ■ _____TV* ■ ■ TV MINUTES CZONING FI asked app could pr wanted th proposed. #1312 fill 3165 NORT VARIANCE PUBLIC HI The . noted. Appl Zoni seeking a will not lakeshori hardcover not requi: Bell sketch si survey a applicatJ acceptinc aware tha noted for applicatj suggested item #4 X "current i Mr. ] and felt applican calculati< based up< percentag percentage There and the pi: It w approval regarding percentag zone. Mai by removii asked app with, an a