Laserfiche WebLink
TO:Planning Commission Members <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />DATE:July 14, 1993 <br />SUBJECT: ;?1841 William dc Lori Ctmel'is, 960 Tonkawa Road - Variance <br />Public Hearing <br />Pertinent Ordinances <br />Section 10.22. Subd. 1 (B) - Lakeshore setback <br />Required = 75 ’ <br />Existing = 50 ’ <br />Proposed = 50 ’ <br />Variance = 25 ’ or 33% <br />Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover within 0-75 ’ <br />Allowed = 0 <br />Existing = 1,200’ <br />Proposed = 1,200’ <br />Variance = 1,200’ or 2.6% <br />List of E.xhibits <br />A - Application <br />B - Addendum to Application <br />C - Property Owners List <br />D - Plat Map <br />E - Minutes of 9/9/92 Council Meeting <br />F - Survey of Average Lakeshore Setback Line for 1992 Land Use Application <br />G - 0-75 ’ Hardcover Facts <br />H - 75-250 ’ Hardcover Facts <br />I - Current Survey <br />Review Exhibits E and F, in November of 1992 the applicants applied for a variance to <br />the average lakeshore setback to allow construction of new residence and pool that would be <br />placed completely in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The application was approved <br />and applicants proceeded with construction. The new residence is now occupied b> the <br />applicants. Problems commenced when it was realized that the survey submitted with *he <br />previous variance application. Exhibit E showed a loop driveway completely located out of the <br />0-75 ’ setback area. Neither the owners nor the contractor had realized that the 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 installed as shown on Exhibit E, the improvement <br />would result in the loss of several mature trees.