Laserfiche WebLink
Gf?0. <br />UFVS:-?. 'J&VgL <br />IDTAU Ap£,^ <br />- !'■•/ <br />-6 - S:-- <br />in V <br />Lt <br />& <br />Ifc <br />.....S^‘ <br />;A' /iOCATf^A/ <br />r <br />j! <br />H ! <br />:.*• . <br />Planning Commission 5 Council <br />Hank htuhich, Zoning Administrator <br />Novenfcer 2, 1977 <br />niomas Lyon - 4790 North Shore Drive <br />Variance - Lot Area <br />Here we are - back again in the Bergquist § Wicklund's Park Addition! This is <br />the last remaining site in Block 3. The site appears to meet the width require­ <br />ments, but lacks adequate area. <br />The survey submitted with the application appears to have been made some time ago <br />It notes the markers and dimensions of the subject parcel as platted, but fails <br />to indicate the status of the right of \%rays as constructed. If this right of way <br />area were to be deducted, the total area ivould be reduced quite substantially. <br />Although we generally require a current survey with proposals such as this, I <br />felt it would be too costly to the applicant if the application were denied. If <br />the variance is approved, however, it should be contingent upon the applicant <br />providing a current survey to verify data submitted and eliminate the guess work. <br />Minimum lot area requirement in this district is 43,560 sq. ft. The area of this <br />lot as shown on the survey is approximately 22,000 sq. ft. This is questionable, <br />however. That area upon which the right of way exists (as shown on survey) should <br />probably be deducted from the total buildable area. <br />Access to County Road #19 would also create a problem. The limited vision around <br />the curve of County Road #19 would only add to the current hazardous traffic <br />situation along the highway. <br />Unless the owner can provide proof of some safer means of access to the property, <br />I would hesitate recoirmending approval. Several other properties on this block <br />''^111 he providing access to Tonka View Lane located north of these properties by <br />obtaining private easements. <br />All setback requirements should also be addressed. Without a survey, the applicant <br />ivas unable to indicate a proposed location from which we could determine if any <br />setback variances might be necessary. <br />, , iv.. <br />1 <br />\: <br />LOCATION OF H <br />Address A <br />Legal Descripl <br />APPLICANT <br />Name <br />Address <4^oc <br />dVNER \/A'y2/v <br />[am^ <br />Address <br />Present Zoning <br />Zoding Ordinanc <br />Specify Ordinan <br />Explain Request <br />< t"? ff-r-'Ckk <br />Extent of Non-c< <br />TM/S LaT <br />KT,\ "^Hardships to Prc <br />X ' ^ ‘ <5~ < <br />AT fT^r <br />1. Application < <br />Pl^ Map Seel <br />^. Sui^y (Sketc <br />Date