Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 16, 1980 Jack Rhode (r546) 1410 Bohns Point Road VARIANCE Page 2 Most discussion recarded how close the house could be placed toward the lake in relation to Section 34.201 relating to average '_akeshore setback. Line A - A Has drawn between the Lauer & Recker houses with Becker saying all construction should be behind that line. Line B - B represents the 75 ft. setback line with Rhode initially requesting construction to that point. Line C - C was a line drawn mlc4:ay between lines A - A and B - B. Line D - D represents an extension of the front line of the Becker house. The Planning Commission recommended house placement behind line D - D in August, 1977. See Exhibit 17. The Council c(-ntinued to review the situation and eventually drew in line C - C as a compromise. The final building nvelope approved by Resolution No. 851 is shown on Exhil)its 8 & 9, wi the lakeshore setback bein. line C - C except where the corner was cut off to preclude any construction in front of line D - D. See Resolution No. 851, Exhibit 7, for the findings, conclusions and conditions. Additional concerns were raised regarding walkway easements across this lot in favor of two properties to the rear which provided lake access and dock rights. Becker contends these constitute a mult;ple use of the property and therefore preclude residential construction. See Resolution No. 851 and Judge Nicholson's findinos, Exhibit 14. NOTE: On June 30, 1980, the Council specifically .irected the Planning Commissiun not to reco cider this issue as there has beer. no chance in status since 1977. This proposal is to renew the lot width and lot area variances previously approved, and proposes to locate the lakeshore setback position as line D - D. Modifications to Resolution No. 851 are succ_este? by Rhode in Exhibit 15 which would affect this chance and would also provide for contin-ied use of the walkway easements and docks subject to annual joint use dock licensing as required for more than two users of any dock. This application also requires review of three other -•ar�.ances not applied for nor previously reviewed: 1. The plan indicates the deck encroaching at one corner to within 72 feet of the shoreline contrary to Section 34.202. There is no apparent hardship and no reason wh} the plan cannot be changed to eliminate this encroachment.