10-19-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MtfnM rfmj > Zoning File 11210 October 13, 1987 Page 4 of 4 Issues that should be addressed for applicant at this review - 1. Is a conditonal use permit application appropriate? a) Guest house will be a non-rental unit while ownership remains under Peter Dougall. 2.Should applicant be advised to file a subdivision application? Will you approve a building permit to be issued for new residence as City did for Michael Plank with the resolve of the conditional use permit application? 3« Does the existence of the guest cabin on the property have any bearing on consideration of the average lakeshore setback line? a) The cabin existed when the Lear home (now Howard) was built. b) What if applicant proposed a major non-lakeshore addition to the existing guest cabin? 4. Should the presence of the tennis court, an accessory lakeshore structure, have any bearing on consideration of the average lakeshore setback line? a) The applicant contends that awnings placed along the fencing of the tennis court in the summer months certainly create lake view restictions for guest cabin. b) The tennis court was installed prior to the 1986 amendment of the code that would have included accessory structures under the average lakeshore setback standard. Note accessory structures are placed in relation to existing residence buildings. 5. Applicant should be advised at this review if the Planning Commission under no condition would create a new lakeshore lot and at the same time recommend approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. If this is the case, applicant should be advised to locate new guest house so that it will conform with the average lakeshore setback line and . recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the guest house. If the Planning Commission finds the hardships noted by the applicant to be sufficient, the application should be tabled pending information on building elevations and view elevations from Howard residence.