Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTr:,s <br />PLANNINU COMMISSION <br />~G13RUA~RI' 14, 2002 <br />feet. The Planner also noted that Roberto is requesting the vacation of a <br />Portion of the Savage Lane right-of--way abutting his Property. <br />Duray indicated that he did not support the variance given that the house <br />can be moved on the lot so that setbacks are met. Duray felt it was <br />somewhat common in the area that soil corrections are necessary when <br />constructing a house. Duray also indicated that he would not be opposed <br />to the vacation of the street. <br />1<eis agreed, but indicated that he had no comment on the issue of the <br />vacation. <br />Knudsen asked how the variance and the vacation were bound together. <br />The City Planner pointed out that if the City vacates a portion of Rose <br />Place, the result would be that Mr. Roberto could place his house 10 feet <br />further south. The vacation affects the amount of variance that is needed. <br />Derek Anderson, 2552 Savage Lane, pointed out that if there is 10 feet <br />Rose Place right-of--way that can be vacated, he suggested that perhaps 5 <br />feet should be vacated on either side of the street so that adjacent property <br />owners share the benefit rather than vacating the entire 10 feet on the <br />north side of the street. Anderson noted that should he even wish to add <br />on to his garage, an additional 5 feet would give him more room to work <br />with. <br />The Planner noted that while the variance is an issue that the Planning <br />Commission must act on, the Council acts on vacations and would make <br />the decision whether or not to vacate, and if so, how the vacations should <br />occur. <br />Keis recommended denial of the variance requested by Sam Roberto for <br />placement of asingle-family home on property located at the northeast <br />corner of Savage Lane and Rose Place given the fact that there is no <br />designated wetland on the property and there is no hardship present to <br />justify the granting of a variance. <br />Motion seconded by Wojcik. <br />Motion carried 4 -- I . Knudsen voted against. <br />Knudsen felt that there were significant poor soils issues on this property, <br />to the point that the property might not be far from being a designated <br />wetland. Knudsen felt that Roberto had a reasonable enough case for the <br />Planning Commission to consider the variance requested. <br />