02-26-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning a zoning Administrator October 19, 1989V«ifnce^f^lesolS?ioS^' Westlake Street - -re, unsewered * Single family lakeshore residential, 2*cond story addition.^ setback variance to construct ExhibitsB " Resolution hibit C - Commission Minutes of 9/18/89 dibit D - Memo &"Lhibitror9/l?/?? 9/19/89 Lon - ' the appllcanif isSeptember 15 iQpg t line where a 30* setbaeir the south I applicant owns the lot and oah!2“ ^"S^ltionally, ‘=°'">>ine tha^ two'^Vl-on'l^^f"' *’’® '>‘Aer fro^ t\%“n “oVth'’l"oriLlr ~ ™ber Of issues are raised by this proposed addition, as ■?‘“llse!' "°"-Pl™»ed cabin at 324 Westlake street as a Average lakeshore setback line determination. iof t.Ve! w"i4"oVt liiTiVr: * 1 ‘>*<^-0"' to a 2 o™!nr«a?us!"* ^““‘toAa/septi^’s^s^Sa “to heir September 18. l9flo * to recommend approval of Planning Commission >a above issues'^L follows: ''*tiance, JSd ommission informed the applicant that it is nt that the lots be uli imately combined and ise torn down, but Planning Commission .d not recommend that a condition of approval s be combination of the lots, in deference to ted problems with having to refinance the two >perties in order to combine them. Planning ed on the fact that the cabin at 324 Westlake plumbing and is generally used for storage, :ant indicated they may have to inhabit that temporary basis during construction of the dition.determination of the average setback line, ission felt that the appropriate average ould be drawn between the adjacent residence 340 Westlake Street and the next house to 65 Bayslde Road, ignoring the location of the Westlake Street. Based on this line no average lakeshore setback variance is •IcW: f • !• 1:^9 M Lng Commission left the resolution of the concerns to staff and the City Council, the section entitled "septic system concerns" September 15th. In summary, that discussion ! City has the right and responsibility to ion of an existing system when addition of lumbing fixtures changes the character or use of a structure. Staff feels that the s 1 bedroom in nature and will be expanded to th the addition. The existing system is ■y functional, with no seepage noted, but ls tandard in design. - though no soil testing the soil survey indicates soil types which require a much larger drainfleld and likely a It is unlikely that the existing system can replaced in a fully conforming mannner based soil types. The issues remain: the house be allowed to double in inhabitant ith no septic system expansion? expansion of the system by increasing trench e allowed regardless of actual soil types ed on the basis that the existing system be functioning relatively well in the soils