04-11-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

.:ETING To: Mayor and City Council ��``�� tt� !Frow: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administ'l"P� F t RONO Date: April 7, 1988 Subject: i1253 B. John Lindahl, Jr., 1406 Bohns Point Road - Variance - Request for reconsideration (Site Plan Error) Exhibits: surve Exhibit A: Original submitted. Exhibit B: original site plan su hmittpd. Exhibit C: Survey with correct garage location in relation to lot line and house. Exhibit D: Applicants measurements from house. Exhibit E: Applicants letter of request. During the final stages of his preparation to apply for a building permit, Mr. Lindahl realized that the site plan he submitted did not coincide with the actual surveyed lot line along North Shore Drive. In fact, where the site plan :.howed the proposed garage located 18' from the property line along North Shore Drive, his survey placed the garage 18' from the i -�tual lot line rather than placing it in relation to the existing garage -.3 the applicant had intended. As you can see by looking at the exhibits, the location relationship between the proposed and existing garages is different on the site plan than it is on the survey. Exhibit A attached is the survey originally provided Exhibit B attar :d is the site plan as originally provided by the applicants landscape architect, and Exhibit C attached is the applicants revised sketch of the proposed garage in its actual proposed location in relationship to the existing house, which appears to be more accurately located on the survey than ! the garage. This leaves a street setback of 14' from North Shore Drive right-of-way, not 18' as was approved by the Council. Applicant states he nas now staked the garage in its exact proposed location. Since some of you may have relied on the incorrect survey in reviewing the application, staff felt it was apropriate to bring this back for Council's confirmation. (If you were previously on the site with Mr. Lindahl, he showed you the correct. props f E ' location, but the street lot line is actually 4' closer than was shown o► the site plan.) The Council has two options: A. Review the corrected information and approve the 14' setback (staff will amend the resolution). B.) Refer thir matter back to the Planning Commission for review at their April 18 meeting, with Council review then on April 25. STA.FP R MC'OMRl ODATIOD if Council feels their initial approval was barred on the correct perception of the garage location, staff wou 1 e` recommend option A. However, If you relied on the survey attached as Erx`iibit 8, which is incorrect, you may wish to choose option R.