Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File 1572 <br />August 16, 1990 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />The current amended application does require approval of the <br />above referenced pertinent ordinances. In reviewing the existing <br />dock section, staff's only comment would be that we would <br />strongly recommend tha*^ the p^.rm^’^ent dock section be installed <br />such that the support b* ms he installed at a lower elevation <br />within the lakeshore bank so th=^t it appears to be a dock section <br />rather than a deck section. Technically, because of the <br />dimensions now proposed by the applicants, this structure can now <br />be classified as a dock section. Once again, in the process of <br />installing new access stairs, such stairs must be limited to the <br />allowed 4' width. <br />Options of Action - <br />If approved. Planning Commission members may adopt the <br />pertinent findings and conditions set forth in the approval <br />resolution of 1987 (Exhibit E). <br />If denied, please refer to the necessary findings in the <br />conditional use permit and variance sections of your zoning code. <br />Additional Cosnents and Planning Covaission Recoi <br />September 4, 1990 <br />mdation <br />Please review the Planning Commission minutes of August 20, <br />1990 for background information on this review. Planning <br />Commission members appeared receptive to the amended plans for <br />the relocated permanent dock within the lakeshore of the <br />property. Members concurred with staff's opinion that the <br />existing permanent dock section appeared more as a deck rather <br />than dock and asked that the new permanent dock section be <br />installed at a lower elevation so as to conform with the section <br />of the dock that extends lakeward. <br />In addition, the Planning Commission advised that the new <br />steps to be installed within the lakeshore bank are to meet the <br />4' wide standards recommended by the City. The Planning <br />Commission recommended that the permanent dock section be <br />installed at or below the 932.4 elevation (3 feet higher than OHM <br />929.4). The applicant's architect confirmed that this would be <br />feasible. <br />The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of <br />the conditional use permit and variance application of the <br />applicants. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the <br />Planning Commission's approval recommendation for Council's <br />review and action.