Laserfiche WebLink
1977 - PAGE 9 <br />.VARY MEMORIAL CHURCH <br />mtinued) <br />^0 <br />IKY GUSTAFSON <br />L5 KELLY AVENUE <br />IIANCE - LAKESHORE <br />rBACK <br />il <br />W < <br />m <br />* •vw- <br />■M- •• <br />^ i <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 5, 1977 - PAGE 10 <br />Commissioner Hammerel asked Mr. Gustafson if this <br />had been discussed with the neighbors had been <br />notified of this meeting to- discuss the addition. <br />Mr. Gustafson replied yes, adding that his father <br />would not add this structure if there had been <br />any objections from the neighbors. The Zoning <br />Administrator stated the neighbors had been notified <br />of this meeting to discuss the addition. <br />Commissioner Hassel moved, Commissioner Hurr seconded, <br />a motion to reconmiend denial of the request for a <br />lakeshore setback variance to erect an enclosed <br />structure on top of an existing foundation because <br />1) no hardship existed; and 2) the addition would be <br />an expansion of an existing non-conforming use. <br />Motion - Ayes (3); Hammerel, Hassel, Hurr: Abstain (4); <br />Wilson, Frahm, Hannah, McDonald. The motion failed. <br />There was further discussion of the proposal. It <br />was brought up that there are a number of existing <br />boat houses where the property owners could ask <br />for similar requests. <br />Mayor Van Nest commented that this type of addition <br />is opposed to the Ordinance, adding that in the <br />past they have tried to remove these structures. <br />The Zoning Administrator stated if the structure <br />was destroyed over 50% by fire it could not be <br />rebuilt. Regardless if the structure was permanent <br />or temporary they would ask that it be removed. <br />He explained that when the property originally <br />was subdivided the new structure located north <br />of this property was approved on the condition an <br />existing cabin be removed which was less than <br />75 feet from the lakeshore. <br />Mr. Gustafson stated they are considering the <br />aesthetics and feel the addition will be very <br />attractive. <br />Commissioner Hurr moved. Commissioner Hassel seconded, <br />a motion to reconsider the previous motion to deny <br />the request for a lakeshore setback variance. <br />Motion - Ayes (7); Nays (0). The motion passed. <br />The Commission was concerned about setting a precedent <br />for other existing slabs along the shoreline which <br />also would be non-conforming situations. They <br />also felt the addition would be a visual obstruction <br />to the neighbors. <br />HARRY GUSTAFSON <br />(continued) <br />#341