Laserfiche WebLink
MINIJTES <br />City Counci.l <br />Oct. 26, 1983 <br />Dupree Land Mr. Fahey introduced the £oll.owing resolution and moved its adopti.ona <br />Pill Permit <br />(Cont<) RGSOLUTTON N0. 83-10-510 - APPROVING THfi CLEAN <br /> P'ILL PER4IIT AS RI;QUF.STED BY MR. NORM DUPR~E <br /> The for.egoing resoLution was duly seconded by Mrs, Scalze. <br /> Ayes (5) Fahey, Scalze, Nardini~ Itanson, Torsberg. <br /> Nayes (0). <br /> ]tesolution declared adopted. <br /> This resoluti.on appears i.n Resolution T~oolc No. 9, Page 555. <br />Schrier Mrs. Scal.ze pointed out that the Planning Commission O.K.'d the <br />7'riangular concept of the Schrier tri.angular pi.ece of property developing <br />Property with an 8-uni.t townhouse. <br />Agenda Mr. P'ahey stated that he was opposed to the variance. I'ahey commented <br />Item No. 12 Chat the property is zoned R-2 and should be used as such cvith'in the <br /> R-2 requirements. <br /> The Planner commented that Mr. Lien i.s looking for concept approval. <br /> Also, the applicant does not feel. that 7 units are woricable, and <br /> therefore, is requesting a variance for 8 units. <br /> Mrs. Scalze poi.nted out that 7.3 uni.ts are allowed under the code. <br /> Mr. L'orsberg stated that he heard 7.6 units were all.owed. <br /> Mrs. Scalze stated that she wouLd lilce to know iL the units can go <br /> out on to County Road C. Scalze stated that she was not in Lavor <br /> of any more traffi.c out to the street above. <br /> Mr. Licht stated that he di.d not lcnow what the County will. say. <br />Pahey staCed that there was no reason why seven units could not be <br />built wi.th tuck under garapes. Pahey stated that he did not see a <br />reason to call for a heari.ng for an increase in uni.ts. <br />The City Cl.erk stated that the hearing wi.ll probably be held on <br />the 27_nd. <br />Scalze commented thae stie wanted to lcno~o wheCher 7.3 or 7,6 uniCs <br />are al.lowaUle under. T.he code. 7'he Planner stated that he wi17. have <br />a survey done and determine this. <br />Appendi.x F Sally Olson, Attorney representing Mr< Davi.d Germer and Mr. Sdilliam <br />Schi[slcy,appear.ed bef.ore the Coioici.l.. Ms. Olson stated that: her <br />A~;enda reason for being there was to request that these Co~o gentl.emen be <br />Item No. 7.3 exempted from havin~ to sprinlcler the two pole builclings they are <br />Page -12- <br />