Laserfiche WebLink
.,v-f-O - r- - ■ <br />4' -w’-ra '2^"-'“^^^^"^’*''' <br />r>^f^es ~ <br />—;u.t-)? ' 7 ' ^ <br />TO: Mayor Grabek and Council <br />FROM: Michael Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />DATS: February 8, 1989 <br />SUBJ: #1364 - Edwin Gage, 480 Tonkawa Road <br />Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Resolution <br />Zoning District - LR-IB <br />Application - Construction of a 6* Wide Permanent Dock/Walkway <br />Structure Located Partially in 0-75' Setback Zone. <br />List of Exhibits - <br />A. Notice of Planning Commission Action 1/25/89 <br />B. Planning Commission Minutes 1/17/89 <br />C. Memo and Exhibits of 1/12/89 <br />D. Draft Resolution for Approval <br />Discussion - <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 added by the <br />permanent 6* wide walkway amounts to 1.8% hardcover in the 0-75' <br />zone. All other hardcover on the property is in the 250-500' <br />zone. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation - <br />The Planning Commission, at their January 17, 1989 Meeting <br />reviewed the proposed walkway and considered the request for the <br />6’ width. Staff noted that a 4' wide walkway would not have <br />required a zoning application because staff is authorized to <br />approve such structures. Applicant's representative. Dale <br />Gustafson, stated that due to the length of the 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 recommendation to approve, based <br />upon the hardship being the safety aspect of the 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 justify the <br />excess 2* in width.