My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1982_1113_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982
>
1982_1113_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2012 1:23:55 PM
Creation date
2/1/2012 1:17:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
lev IL <br />CASE NUMBER: 1412 -$2 <br />APPLICANT; Edward McCarty <br />1 December 1982 Page 4 <br />It appears that a po rtion. of ar tic ial shoreline was constructed as one time <br />and to our knowledge was done so in the southerly, portion of the shoreline <br />coat iguot s to Mr, McCar L ' s property. None of the drawings submitted <br />indicate where this previous "wall' existed. In any case, if it was <br />deteriorated to__ the point where it weeded total replac ement # it would <br />appear not to qualify as a non - conforming structure. <br />6! Mr, Steve North, Assistant City Manager, has been in touch with Kent <br />Lokesmoe from the Department of Natural Resources who informs I r, North <br />that the extension of fill into the lake 'is expressly prohibi ted by the <br />DNR and would not be approved, Mr. Lokesmoe indicates that Mr, , <br />McCarty noted that portions of the wall had previously been in existence <br />which according to Mr. Lokesmoe would have some bearing on whether or not <br />a permit would be issued by the Department of Natural Resources, <br />He indicates, a permit from the DNR is necessary for the construction of <br />the wall to the extent it has already been done and for its completion. <br />If the -City does not approve the variance to the Shoreline Zoning ordinance <br />as requested, a petition before the DNR becomes moot, <br />7, The Planning Comm.i s lion and Council may wish to consider the consequences <br />of an approval of the variance. It would appear that if the variance is <br />granted,. then a precedence will have been established allowing others to <br />apply for a . si.milar variance and thus be allowed to construct such <br />artificial shorelines contiguous to their property. if this is done in <br />even parts of the lake, the aesthetic impact and degradation of the lake <br />will be substantial. The City has invested substantial funds in the <br />acquisition of contiguous park properties around the lake. The protection <br />of that public interest in the farm of the preservation of the natural <br />amenities of the shoreline seem to be of prime importance to. the general <br />public interest. <br />hm <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.