Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Pile #1856 <br />September 24. 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. <br />A 0-75 ’ setback area = 3,200 s.f. (3,900 s.f. - 700 s.f.) <br />Allowed = 0 <br />Existing = 607 s.f. or 18.9% <br />Proposed = 607 s.f. or 18.9% <br />75-250’ setback area = 8,274 s.f. <br />Existing = 2,431 s.f. or 29.4% <br />Proposed = 2,428 s.f. or 29.3% <br />The issue of the height variance was no longer of great concern as the City w^as in receipt <br />of two letters from adjacent residents taking no issue with the proposed improvement. In fact <br />members noted the height of the residence to the east claiming that it would still h.gher than <br />applicants’ final proposed structure. <br />As already noted, the Planning Commission supported applicants’ request for cement <br />walkway in lakeshore yard providing ease of maintenance during snowy weather. The removal <br />or reduction of off-street parking was not a consideration because of the narrow right-of-way of <br />Crystal Bay Road and of the steep lakeshore bank on the north side of road. Off-street parking <br />is very necessary in this area. <br />All in all, the Planning Commission felt that the amended proposal reduced the intensity <br />of the variances sought by applicant in original June application and recommended unanimous <br />approval. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission’s <br />recommendatitin adopting hardship statement of the applicant, as set forth in Exhibit O. <br />Please review the packet prepared for the Planning Commission review that provides <br />more detail on this multiple variance review. <br />Isv