Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: Mayor and City Council From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: April 7, 1988 Subject: 11253 B. John Lindahl, Jr., 1406 Bohns Point Road - Variance - Request for reconsideration (Site Plan Error) Exhibits: serve Exhibit A: Original submitted. Exhibit B: Original site plan submitted. ExhibitC: Survey with correc,: garage locat. in relation to lot linp 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 showed the proposed garage located 18' from the property line along North Shore Drive, his survey placed the garage 18' from the actual lot line rather than placing it in relation to the existing garage as the a, licant 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 attached is the site plan as originally provi,�Fl 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 t;ie 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 has 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 bask for Council's confirmation. (If you were previously on the site with Mr. Lindahl, he showed you the correct proposeu location, but the street lot line is actually 4' closer than was shown on the site plan.) The Council has two options: A.) Review the corrected information and approve the 14' setback (staff will amend the resolution). H.) Refer this matter bac', 1�o the Planning Commission for review at their April 18 meEtinq, with Council review then on April 25. ST/1tT RBCOMUMATION If Council feels their initial approval was based on the correct perception of the garage location, staff �?uld recommend option A. However, if you rel ied on ti - 4urvey attached as Exhibit B, which is incorrect, you may wish to choosy- option B. I% W-1W to, ► -.., A,.• 0%, 1ja P0,