Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />DECEMBER 10, 1992 <br />In response to Mr. Ryan's letter included in the agenda <br />packet, Grabrick reported that he did not place his <br />house on the lot in order to have a view of the lake. <br />The setback encroachment was an honest mistake. <br />Grabrick reported that Mr. Ryan has overfilled his lot. <br />He had a fill permit for 360 cubic yards and has placed <br />1,500 cubic yards of fill on the lot. This has caused <br />drainage problems for the Grabrick property, which have <br />results in Grabrick putting $12,000 to $15,000 in <br />corrections on his property. <br />Grabrick reported that he would like the Commission to <br />approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variance, and <br />reported that he would continue negotiating for the <br />purchase of the Ryan property. Grabrick did not want <br />to be put into a position of being required to purchase <br />the Ryan property, however. <br />Grabrick stated that he had no objection to Mr. Ryan <br />wanting to use his property, however, indicated that a <br />property owner cannot force run -off onto another <br />property. Grabrick stated that there are legal ways in <br />which he can address the situation, but he has not <br />pursued them. <br />DeLonais asked if the Ryan property was large enough so <br />that an eight foot section could be sold to Grabrick <br />while still maintaining a buildable lot. <br />Mr. Greg Ryan replied that there is adequate area to do <br />so. <br />The City Planner reported that there are two ways to <br />address the Grabrick situation, one being the <br />Conditional Use Permit and the other the Variance. The <br />Grabrick home is currently non - conforming, and Code <br />allows for the expansion of a non - conforming use <br />through a Conditional Use Permit. The other option <br />includes granting a Variance for the side yard setback, <br />which would then make the house conforming, without <br />need for a Conditional Use Permit. <br />The Planner stated that it is his recommendation that <br />the Conditional Use Permit be approved, and that no <br />comment be made on the Variance application. The <br />Planner did not believe that variance criteria was met <br />to warrant variance approval. Under the CUP, the <br />Page 2 <br />