04-24-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINOTBS OP THB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 20, 1939 ZONING FILE 11261-RAUSCHENDORFER CONTINUED Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked the Rauschendorfers if it was necessary to replace the foundation. She suggested to the Planning Commission that if Rauschendorfers intended to proceed in that manner, they wculd need to get approval at this time. Mr. Rauschendorfer repl^^d that water damage had occurred to the east side of the foundation. Chairman Kelley stated that he could not approve any further encroachment toward the lake or anything less than a 10* setback from the west property line. He would approve a single stall garage as long as it met that setback. Mr. Rauschendorfer explained that a single car garage would interfere with parking and turn around capabilities. Kelley suggested placing the garage in the turn around area. Mrs. Rauschendorfer explained that there was a timber wall in that location. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of a 6.23* east side setback variance; no west side setback variance; a 19.98* street setback variance; and a 17* lakeshore setback variance. The hardcover should not exceed existing amounts. If the foundation needs to be replaced within 75* of the lake, approval is recommended as long as proper erosion control is exercised and the foundation remains in the same location. Motion, Ayes*2, Nays-2. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval as depicted in Chairman Kelley*a motion, with the exception of allowing the attached garage to be approximately 6* from the west lot line 14* variance), providing that a firewall be installed in the rrarage. Kelley asked if the 4* variance would include an overhang. Mabusth stated that if the overhang was less than 1-1/2* it would not be considered an encroachment. She added that drainage would have to be directed away from the adjacent property. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to deny the request for the 8* west side setback variance and the 21* lakeshore setback variance. The remainder of Johnson*s motion reflected the motion made by Kelley with regard to the hardcover and foundation. Mabusth asked for clarific''^jon regarding the applicants* statement that a single stall g- 2 would not allow for parking and turn around. After some diu« <ion, it was determined that there should be room to park the au-itional car. The issue of removal of the temporary shed was discussed. Bellows stated that the shed must be removed. Johnson concurred that the shed be removed. Motion, Ayes«3, Brown, Nay because of his belief that a 2 car garage should be allowed if possible and that a previous representation had been made to the applicants that a 10* separation from the neighboring structure would be allowed.