Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />FROM <br />DATE: <br />PlMnan Connittioii Members <br />Raa Maofie. Cu> AJaurntmor <br />Jeaaor A. Mabitstiiu Dtuldim & Z »tf n I <br />My 14. 1993 <br />SUBJECT: flS4I Winiim & Lon Conieliiss, 960 Tooiuvba Ro«l • Ythance <br />PiMk Heaftel <br />PrrtiiKat Or ♦ 111 r 11 res> <br />(Sectiofi 10 22. Sulid 1 (B> • l^alirshoft sctbick <br />Requifed • 75’ <br />Fxistic^ “ 50* <br />ProfK»el - SO’ <br />Vvunce • 25* or 33T <br />iS«T«>«Tn 10 22, Subd. 2 Hankov<f wUhin 0-75’ <br />Allowed » 0 <br />Existing • 1.200 ’ <br />Proposed » 1.200 ’ <br />V'arunce ■ 1,200* or 2.6% <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Application <br />D > Addemhun to \pplicauon <br />C - Propcfty Owners List <br />D - Plat Map <br />E • Minutes of 9 W92 Council Meeting <br />F - Survey of Average Lakeshorc Setback Line fer 1992 Land Use Application <br />G - 0-75’ Hardcover Facts <br />H - 75-250’ Hardcover Facts <br />I - Current Survey <br />Revkw Exhibits E and F. in November of 1992 the applicants applied for a variance to <br />the average hkeshore setback to allow construction of new residence and pool that would be <br />placed completely in front of the average lakeshorc setback line. The application was approved <br />and applicants proceeded with construction. The new residence is now occupied by the <br />applicants. Problems commenced when it was realized that the survey submitted with the <br />previous variance application. Exhibit E show«l a loop driveway completely located out of the <br />0-75’ setback area. Neither the owners nor the contractor had realized that t^ surveyor had <br />relocated this specific section of loop driveway (review Exhibit I) out of the 75 setback area on <br />the survey, if the driveway loop is to be iasialled as shown on Exhibit E. the improvement <br />would result in the loss of several mature trees.