Laserfiche WebLink
� �� �� I � <br /> . i <br /> • � FILE#07-3305 <br /> 10 October 2007 <br /> i Page 1 of 2 <br /> , Date Application Received: 06/20/07 <br /> Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/18/07 <br /> 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11/18/07 � , <br /> To: Chair Kempf and Plannirig Commission Members <br /> Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br /> � . <br /> From: Melanie Curtis,Planning,&Zoning Coordinator ,�� <br /> Date: 10 October 2007 � <br /> Subject: 07-3305, Lake Country Builders on behalf of James Ziminerman <br /> 2745 Shadywood Road �� <br /> ,�� > > <br /> • Variances—Lake Setback, 0-75 & 75 -250 Zone Hardcover <br /> ___ •__Public Hearing { <br /> - ----------------------'I--------------------------------------------- <br /> List of Exhibits � <br /> Exhibit A - Corrected Hardcover Info�mation . <br /> ,Exhibit B- Information submitted by:�he Applicant <br /> Exhibit C- PC Report of 9/12/07 <br /> Exhibit D - PC Minutes—August 2007 . . <br /> Exhibit E- Draft PC Minutes—September 2007 <br /> i <br /> Background i . <br /> This application was first introduced at the August Planning Commission meeting. There <br /> were four Commissioners in attendance. At that meeting the applicant was requesting <br /> hardcover and lake setback variances in order to construct additions to the existing home. <br /> Following a discussion about the proposal it appeared there were at least three <br /> Commissioners generally supportive of the applicant's request. A general consensus was <br /> reached that the applicant's Option #3 'was most favored as long as the roof line was <br /> lowered and the proposed porch at the point was removed from the plan. However, one <br /> Commissioner remained unsatisfied that'the applicant was making a reasonable request <br /> and if a vote was taken at least this one Commissioner would have voted to deny the <br /> application. Generally the applicant was�given direction and the application was tabled. <br /> ,� <br /> At the September PC meeting the applicant brought two separate revised options forward. <br /> Both of these options generally met the direction given at the previous meeting; staff <br /> favored one over the other in light of the pergola/porch. Only one of the September <br /> Commissioners'was in attendance at the�,previous meeting (the one dissenting member). <br /> Upon reviewing the applicant's revised �proposal the Commission generally felt that the <br /> applicant's request was unreasonable and discussed denial. The applicant was taken by <br /> surprise at this conclusion and rather than having the application denied by the four <br /> member commission, requested tabling. The draft minutes from this meeting as well as <br /> the minutes from the August meeting are attached as Exhibits D &E. <br /> , <br /> ; <br /> � <br /> � <br /> ` 1 <br /> .i <br /> ;� <br />