Re: complaint/pool permit - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. :IIDATTES OF A PLA,'�BVDJG Op�Ai1SSIQV ?&�1'�IG l�LD Al1GUS1' 2, 1976 - PAGE 2 j � �;� Chain�raman D�.mlap called to order the ILegular i teeting of CALL 'Pp OR�R - 8:20 P.'.1. the Orano Plaruiina Cqimissian. g�� ,�;� �" " . Pesek mov�ed, (�thrie seconded, that the minutes of the APPROVAL OF MLNUfES �� Planning Conmission meetin� of July 19, 1976, be ap�roved. i�'I'I?1G JULY 19 197b t•botion - Ayes (8) , Nays �;1) . ' N Afr. Petzrson explained to the Planning Comnission that he 1�1AYI� pETEItSpV had purchased this property about 1 year ago. Efe �.u�der- 1359 PARK DRNE stood there were mistmderstandings, but felt that the VARIANC� - SI� Y.1PD problems had been solved. The Peterson's purchased this g�� ;i P�rtY in good faith. / �*;. C� �" Pesek moved, Van idest seconded, to approve this variance � because it is after the fact and the pool has been there �� for the past three years. Pesek felt that this was not a �'. violatio� by the Peterson's ��ho purchased the property only � one year ago. They were unforttmate to inherit an existing �'t non-confoz�ning situatian which was never before brought to � the attention of staff. �•totion - Ayes (8) , Nays (0) . � k'`; rfr. Curtis was in attendance and presented pictures of his ?tIQiAEL CUFtTIS �� property. After a short discussion, i�•(cDonald moved, Pesek 4200 :JORTH 9i0RE DRIVE �� seconded, to grant approval of this variance because the VARIANCE _ LorI' qREp �, {��{ ��:: proposed addition �,rould be re;�lar,ing the substandard leanto �� portion of the house and it �rould in no way encrc�ach on the �; existin� setbacks. ?•lotion - Ayes (8) , iJays (0) . ;t. �: �' The Zoning Administrator presented the building nlans to rRED RY�;y s' the Cormission. T�tr. Ryan was present to explain his plans 1345 N�I]I AI�i DRNE �' for this additian. Van sJest moved, Gu rie seconded, to ; VARIAN(� - SEfBACiC B�'Tl�J � recnrr�nend approval subject ta providin fire separat.ions � ,��g as re�uired by the State Code and the bination of all ;� the individual parcels and vacated stre t. The �ubject :,. 'of the vacated street should be refen to the ttorney ;; to resolve its actual status:� � � �: _ � �, - �ir. � �irs. Smith were in attendance. Afrs. Smit}i explained TRAVIS S�Q'ht - � to the Co�nission that at the start of the construction 1945 f-�FL�SS POI�VT ROAD �<, they instructed the contractor not to disturb tt�e trees ��Iq,� _ � y,� D � ' that w+ere on the property in order to build the house. � t�` SETBACK The location of the l�ouse was then moved over to avoid �'�A :emoving the trees. The i�spector was never inforn�ed of the cl►ange in location. I,arry Shaw, a nei�or to �`,` '�he north of tlie Smith's was also present at the meeting. ,;� lle expressed his disappointment with tlie building of this � no��e. Ile ;nentioned that he complained several times to ;;¢ the buildin� insnector regarding tlle building location. � The present location of the Smith�s hame blocks his view ' of the lake. The Planning Cqmiission felt that the only question here was the rear yard setback as the new locatian still met all sideyard setback rec�uirements. Pesek moved, 1lake secanded, approval of this variance because the house is finished. lbwever granting this ` appmval does not constitute approval for a �,rivate dock on the shoreline strip directly across the street. t•btion - Ayes (8)� :Jays (p), : :�,,�._.