04-18-1983 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1^ I :#! \r i < J I ** P > -S A^Vm JV--: tr^-: I:'.' ■ r-:. i -^• TO:Planning Commission Members FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator DATE:April 14, 1983 SUBJECT:#739 - Edward T. Lehman - 3525 Shoreline Drive - 2440, 2450, 2470 Carman Street - Preliminary Subdivision Zoning District - LR-IC Area 2.74 acres Application - Subdivision - Plat - Lot Line Rearrangement List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Resolution - Approving Lehman Addition Exhibit E - Lehman Addition Plat Exhibit F - Required Setback Map Exhibit G - Building Envelope - subject to approval of setback variances Exhibit H - Preliminary Plan - Lot Line Rearrangement In 1977, Council approved the Lehman Addition (see Exhibits D & E). Some six months after that approval, the applicant was back seeking setback variances from the street and lagoon area for Lots 2 & 3. Lehman lives on Lot 4 and his son lives in the house on Lot 1 and uses a dock on the lagoon located within Lot 3. Lots 2 & 3 were never built on and t^»e setback variances of 1977 have expired. Lehman has approached the City asking that the existing properties with the addition of newly acquired Lot 7 (now included in the area of proposed Lot 3) be realigned to create riparian corridors to the lagoon. His request is based on the fact that he has approximately 460* of shoreline on the main lake and lagoon (330+ on lagoon). At the time he filed a subdivision application, Lehman also filed a renewal variance application for newly created Lot 3. This will be discussed in the review of application #740. Review of Current Subdivision: The proposed lot line rearrangement with the acquisition of Lot 7 does provide more area for Lot 3 but certainly does not improve the building envelope. (See exhibits F & G). Approval of setback variances to permit construction on the lot is inevitable. Lot 2's building envelope must not only adhere to the required building setbacks but also include a 26' setback from the wetlands to the rear. I do not see the need for setback variances for Lot 2 as proposed. Note since the original lot dimensions for Lots 1 & 4 were not decreased, the existing buildings were not located on the preliminary survey. S •“V >4 4; I . % ki. H't. y... .u. 1 Y -i -J <• “ #739 - I April 1^ Page 2 As for 1 overall four lol There is docks al standarc The lagc of this property the appi Staff R€ To recoi of Edwa] area bui approval the depi 1.Ripi sho: Docl hor: 2.All Bui 3.Loti froi 4.At the own* gen*