Laserfiche WebLink
«fil v;^:=^:.; . <*.wcSoning Administrator <br />:own Road - <br />3T Commission Recommendation <br />kuTISiJ <br />ibdivision to create a new <br />iewed by the City Council at <br />field brought up a number of <br />.ng conditions which the City <br />sncerns relate to use of the <br />on that no buildings can be <br />ling Commission clarify their <br />ructures be allowed south of <br />was not before the Planning <br />Mr. Butterfield's easement <br />, and the DNR does not limit <br />leld. Because of this, the <br />el south of the Luce Line is <br />‘eat degree and under DNR's <br />Lnce Planning Commission to <br />ilpful to both staff and the <br />detail your reasons for <br />sory structures be allowed <br />the setback requirement for <br />as the Planning Commission's <br />north side of the Luce Line <br />ack? In a typical two acre <br />net the Luce Line Trail, the <br />;k from the Luce Line for <br />: Intent regarding accessory <br />louth sides of the trail and <br />in. <br />b A• r i'.yj <br />m1Jlv>yS( <br />^ ... t .• ^tf.: <br />!>W <br />Si' <br />1 <br />m-- <br />■2'^ <br />-'•. >■■ ■ -.' > ■ ■'s- :'j <br />iiiV:' <br />^ V. V ’••/ <br />6ili <br />• <br />v<- <br />.01^1 <br />■r <br />mmmm <br />-Wf <br />. ■ : r -;'. • ^ <br />i’?:' <br />im <br />Si <br />I ',;5^Li ^ -i•••;':^ •ir‘, . ■. .;.4.lifeiKA-A" ■ ■.:••.•• V-.. .-.V- ■• - ** Bit.: -y y ..#^v:.:>*>%'>■V^ v-i. :- . .-,td-V :-'; •^r r-r::S.^rm <br />mm m .V- <br />m <br />r-i <br />m. <br />W*’ <br />. Mm <br />;'Vv: ;:./;.': :'-• i£ <br />a <br />jNiv< m mii : ^ i,'r&f;m'r m•I mmmZoning Pile #1366 March 14, 1989 Page 2 of 2III. The applicant feels the south line of Lot 2 should not be <br />Considered as a rear lot line, since the property continues across the <br />trail. Be would prefer a 50' setback to the Luce Line for <br />construction of the principal residence. Please re-state your views <br />Issue. The zoning code does not specifically address Mr. <br />s non—contiguous situation, and the City certainly has the <br />right to impose reasonable conditions in this variance situation. <br />IV. Finally, note that the City Attorney, City Engineer and staff are <br />reviewing applicant's concerns regarding continued use of the <br />designated wetlands for peat removal and irrigation purposes. At this <br />time the Planning Commission is not requested to address these issues. <br />fe*:'• ■:J <br />. •yp^^ -nv.c ■:>\ ■ili <br />isi* <br />f-jm. <br />to, <br />- <br />mm <br />■,:::'- :«iS <br />r-A >:;;/< <br />mM-M <br />U <br />■■..'t'i <br />y,/ <br />•••=•''■'.- -y. -yy- <br />■ '■,:' y :•;■■■ <br />r-m. <br />mmmmrnmmiPI:f^y4^;y:Ay'yi''A^ <br />L f V <br />V -iy <br />:yAn;-::y <br />. ;;a T ■v:Vy-. <br />I -2^ ^ <br />S' <br />' ■'. h