08-22-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation - File #1303 August 17, 1988 Page 4 of 5 Additional Exhibits Exhibit J - Planning Commission Minutes 7/18/88 Exhibit K - Fisher Letter Dated 7/13/88 Submitted for Planning Commission Meeting of 7/18/88 Exhibit L - Revised Site Plan Showing Location of Fence in Relation to Rearranged Lot Line Please review the Planning Commission minutes of 7/18/88 (Exhibit J). In the denial resolution, the Planning Commission members failed to cite reasons for the denial of the application. Discussion did center around the concerns of Mr. Fisher, the property owner to the immediate south. The two major concerns addressed by the owner appeared to be a safety concern involving recent improvements of his property that would bring the parking turn -around area close to the lot line. Mr. Fisher is concerned that clacement of the 6' high fence may present a hazard to the children who Ilay behind the fence near the entrance to his property. The other concern appears to be an aesthetic concern and as the Planning Commission has been advised, this Commissions has no authority or basis for dealing with aesthetic matters. The Planning Commission failed to address the issues raised in the staff memo <<bove. In fact, the applicant questioned why the Planning Commission failed to address the pertinent issues raised by staff. Mr. Rezabek was present curing the meeting that reviewed the apt lication for the Scanlons that involved the replacement of lakeshore structures destroyed by the storm of last year. At that same meeting, the Planning Commission approved setback variances for parking and a pylon sign because of a lot line change due to County road improvements. The applicant has asked staff to distinguish between the findings of approval for the Scanlon and Super Value approvals in their variance applications. There appears to be no basis for denial on the part of the Planning Commission except for the issue of safety that can easily be resolved in the relocating of the fence on the Rezabek property - place the fence structure in line with the garage front on the Fisher prop-�rty. Please review Exhibit L, a revised site plan by staff showing the location of the fence in relation to the newly defined lot line. If you review both surveys of the Rezabek and Fisher properties, note that the fence is placed right on the newly defined lot line on one and along the east side it appears to encroach the Fisher property on the other for approximately 100'. In reality, the fence is located anywhere from a 1/2' to l' within. the Fisher side of the lot lire. If Mr. Rezabek is to be allowed to restore his fence on his side of the newly defined lot line, he will be seeking a lakeshore setback variance for his 6' high Frivacy fence. On the west side of the property, the fence is P—ated al.ptoximately lu' from the shoreline. The applicants would rcruire approval of a 65' or 87% setback variance. If the fence is proposer' t a straight line measured from the front line of the front qarage door:, of the Fisher residence, the fence would be located approximately 55' fr-: she east shoreline requiring a 20' or. 57% variance. Tre former fence w-.; located 35' from the east shoreline.