05-08-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINDTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1989 1375 DAVE PRICE 2914 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:26 P.M. >7:40 P.M. Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Mr. Price was requesting an average setback variance and hardcover variance for the purpose of constructing an addition. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator stated that the addition would be behind an existing garage and partially over an existing patio. Hardcover in the 75-250* would increase from 27.6% to 30.0%. Chairman Kelley commented that the neighboring property to the west would not be visually impacted by the proposed addition. The property to the east would be somewhat impacted. Gaffron mentioned that the addition would interfere with their view of the neck of the lagoon. Mr. Price explained his hardship to be the need for more living space due to a growing family. Further, the existiiig kitchen area is located on the lower level of the house. Planning Commissioner Brown observed that a portion of the house already extended 18* beyond the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed addition would only extend 12* beyond the line. Kelley stated that the intent of the code regarding average lakeshore setbacks is to protect the views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners. Gaffron confirmed that the City had not received any communications from Mr. Price's neighbor to the east. Mr. Price stated that he had not discussed his proposal with that neighbor. Planning Commissioner Brown questioned the possibility of hardcover removal to compensate for the hardcover being added in the 75-250* zone. He suggested removal of the patio. Planning Commissioner Bellows expressed the difficulty involved with this application because the structure already extends beyond the average lakeshore setback and has 27.6% hardcover in the 75-250* zone. She believed that should approval be recommended, the reasons for doing so be very explicit. Planning Commissioner Hanson noted for the record that even though Mr. Price's home was lakeshore property, the addition would not pose a negative visual effect, which is the foundation of purpose of the average lakeshore setback requirement. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of application #1375, for an average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition to the existing residence. Approval is conditioned' upon