Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br />f r/' <br />TO: Mayor Grabek and Council <br />PROM: Michael Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />DATE: February 8, 1989 <br />SUBJ: #1364 - Edwin Gage, 480 Tonkawa Road <br />Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Resolution <br />Zoning D*^trict - LR-IB <br />Application - Construction of a 6* Wide Permanent Dock/Walkway <br />Structure Located Partially in 0-75* Setback Zone. <br />List of BXk <br />A. <br />B. <br />C. <br />D. <br />J -jtice of Planning Commission Action 1/25/89 <br />Planning Commission Minutes 1/17/89 <br />Memo and Exhibits of 1/12/89 <br />Draft Resolution for Approval <br />Please read the memo of January 12, 1989. Briefly, the <br />applicants are requesting approval for a 6* wide permanent <br />walkway that crosses a lakeshore border wetland in order to reach <br />a seasonal dock on the shore of Stubbs Bay. This permanent <br />walkway is necessary because the only way to reach the lakeshore <br />without walking through the wetland is to cross the neighboring <br />property. <br />The 420 s.f. of hardcover that will be a<2<3ed by t,^' <br />permanent 6* wide walkway amounts to 1.8% hardcover in t^ <br />zone. All other hardcover on the property is in the 25C^ *500 <br />zone. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation - <br />The Planning Commission, at their January 17, 1989 <br />reviewed the proposed walkway and considered tne request for the <br />6* width. Staff noted that a 4* wide walkway would not nave <br />required a zo:>,lag application because staff is authorized to <br />approve such structures. Applicant's representative, D^'^le <br />Gustafson, stated due to the length he walkway and the <br />owner's intent to keep it low profile without a railing, the 6 <br />width would offer increased stability given the permanent intent <br />and provide more walking room as a safety measure. <br />The Planning Commission recommendatici ? <br />upon the hardship being the safety aspect c. ;he 2 additional <br />feet, passed on a vote of 4 Ayes and 3 Nays. The minority <br />opinion was that sufficient hardship was not shown to 3ustify tne <br />excess 2* in width.