Laserfiche WebLink
‘TA GlbMN aXTOA' <br />nued) <br />f: I LVPvDVv!,\nn <br />lORELINE DPJ\T- [Dni\Tia\’ OP pjAasi-D <br />Mi:trrps of a PiA'nn:jr, cavisr.vjA ?rj:Tr:n iiplo octobfr 17, ip77 - ^age 7 <br />T!ie Zoning Administrator advised tliat tlie applicant is <br />requesting a variance to construct a garage beliind liis <br />home. A variance for lot width, lot area and setback <br />between structures is necessar)'’. bocating tlie garage <br />to meet all requirements \\uuld require removal of <br />numerous trees aiid bushes. <br />Mr. Doty and '!r. ■'\nderson, neighbor to tlie soutli, v;erc <br />present. Tlie Comission was concerned al')out the erosion <br />of tlie lull behind the apnliccint's hone - lialf the roots <br />are showing no\/. ^’r. Doty felt that nothing v;ould kill <br />tliose trees. Mo d.\d state, howewr, tliat he v/ould be <br />cabliiifi the trees. <br />Suliject property and adjacent property to the nortli and <br />south are under single separate ownership. Mo other land <br />is available. Applicant's neighbor, Mr. ;\nderson, <br />voiced no objection. <br />After some discussion, llannali moved, Pralim seconded, to <br />reconmond approval of the variance request given the fact <br />tliat no additional variances are being created, proposed <br />garage would be continuation of existing side >xird setback. <br />Xpplicant has the understanding that garage walls facing <br />the residence be constructed to meet the building code to <br />protect against fire spreading to tlie liouse. Tliis notion <br />in no way" addresses tlie erosion problem. Tliis is something <br />that goes with the property. Justification the tiv'o <br />adjacent properties and the siiiject property are in single <br />separate ownership. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (D), .Alistain <br />(2) - McDonald, llurr. <br />Mr. and ?lrs. Claypool were present. Tlie Zoning Vlministrator <br />advised that the applicant had obtained a building permit <br />for construction of a residence. During this construction, <br />tlie applicant cut down a number of large trees and destroyed <br />tlie natural shoreline. A stop work order was existed, 'flie <br />applicant came into the office immediately and came back <br />with the present proposal. <br />Tlie Commission reviewed the proposal and recognized the <br />importance of this emergency restoration. Tlie applicant <br />informed the Commission tliat he was not avv'are of any <br />restrictions within 75 ft. of the shoreline. The applicant <br />will be replacing ten 3" trees and will temixirarily be using <br />bales of hay to stop the erosion. Tlie Planning Commission <br />suggested substituting 3" diameter locust trees with a <br />faster growing variety. Some further filling and grading <br />w^ould be necessary and the Planning Commission suggested <br />that staff supendse this grading and filling. <br />nie applicant was informed tliat the stop work order would be <br />rei'Kived and construction could resume on the residence. <br />Restoration project could commence immediately upon approval <br />of tlie other agencies. <br />iDMUD non' <br />341 ’j;s'rL\ia- STPvEHT <br />vmiViCi- - LDT mi\ AID mm <br />A'JD SETIWCKS <br />CARXer. ADDITION ON EXISTIN’G <br />SimSTADAPJ) IDT <br />(A321) <br />BLMNE CIAYPOOL <br />507 rm: laid <br />EMERGCO SHORELINE <br />RESTOR/VTia^ <br />(#331) <br />A- <br />11 <br />r <br />I# <br />i# <br />f ’ <br />4= <br />4 <br />i. <br />t " <br />\\ <br />d <br />mNUTES OF A PL/IfcDonald moved, <br />tlie emergency rc <br />(1) <br />(2) <br />(3) <br />(4) <br />Straight si <br />non-creosol <br />regulation* <br />Riprap rev: <br />Berm and gi <br />Engineer ai <br />Completion <br />mth excepi <br />ditions so <br />before June <br />Approval of <br />Removal of <br />shoreline, <br />fbtion - Ayes (7 <br />C5) <br />(6) <br />Mr. Grid ley v/as <br />the Planning Con <br />application. Tli <br />meeting so that <br />and a report cou <br />Soil and Mater C <br />The Planning Cot : <br />application had <br />received, uc ar <br />matter so the ma <br />was advised that <br />would be on tlie <br />Mr. David Die ap <br />and requested tli <br />presentation as <br />be taken at tlie <br />7, 1977. His ma <br />to malce this age <br />Mr. Die appeared <br />September 1977 r <br />an electrical sh <br />that time, the C <br />requirements wer <br />necessary materi <br />Commission infor <br />be discussed as ; <br />on November 7, 11 <br />Tlie Planning Com <br />work session iter <br />Mr. Stubbs is rei <br />setback requireme <br />tlie existing dwcl <br />a continuation o <br />would, lioi>^ver, ei <br />side vard setback