08-08-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COUNCIL ACTION ^datc :item NO. ^iLi'i rator Reviewed:AsendaSectii Zoning IW5 Shoreline Drive te Plan Review - Resolution Amended ^R by DNR ^le to Stoll 21 in an attempt to minimize the Jborto^wcst. Review Exhibit B. The neightonng property owner advised that negative impact upon his views. Staff noted rty owner on the opposite side of the street a S*dhi! h"* view easements « Mr. DeSantis’ tiomhip with the adjacent neighbors. This isaiion. ^ area suitably that p acement of a structure to the south side iccess lotion. They also noted that only the ! use of Stolls 17 - 20. ^ meat of Natural Resources noting that they 8c in hardcover nor an encroachment of the Jlocated within the 75’ setback area, review vR 50 required lakeshore setback. proved the amended application that would module now locaied within Stall 34 to either > contact the DNR to deteimine what stalls are and for staff to make an analysis of the impact of stnicture if moved closer to street * 1 I ! 1 : I i' for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 July 29, 1994 #1947 Sailors World, 1955 Shoreline Drive Review Exhibits K and L. Ceil Strauss of the DNR has aiqjroved either Stolls 19 or 20. Review Exhibit M, staff met with the Engineer at the site to review any sighting issues with tte use of Stalls 19. 20 or 21. We both recommend against the use of Stall 20 of polentiti hazards with the side loading doon adjacent to access drive to marina. Stalb 19 and 21 would not impact sighting at intersection. Existing landscaping will not provide desired scre^rf^ture. Evergreen type plantings were recommended by Plannipg Commission and they asked that a landscape plan be provided by the end of August with a plantiiig schedule. Comparison of Stalls 19 and 21. Stoll 19 Structure located within 0-75’ lakeshore setback. Loss of use of Stolls 16 and possibly 17. Less visual impact as 8’ side exposed to County road. No sighting problem at intersection. Location acceptable to neighboring property owner. StaU21 1. Structure located out of lakeshore setback. 2. ' No loss of additional stalls. 3. More visual impact on 20’ side exposed to County road. 4. No sighting problem at intersection. 5. Location not acceptable to neighboring property owner. oTActi« To deny reqiii^.:* tij amend variance Application #1874, OR To approve applicant’s amended variance application and to approve Stoll as new location for 8’ x 20’ storage module requiring landscape plan with planting schedule of evergreen plantmgs by August 22, 1994 Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To provide conceptual direction to staff so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for Council’s action at their August 22nd meeting.