My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-28-91 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
08-28-91 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:10:20 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:54:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 28, 1991 <br />have a survey of the property indicating the correct <br />lot dimensions, that would be pursued, if necessary. <br />Scalze pointed out that approval will require a 4/5ths <br />vote of the Council, and suggested that if the <br />applicant doesn't have the votes, perhaps the matter <br />should be sent back to the Planning Commission. <br />Blesener asked what the front yard setback was for the <br />house. <br />McBride estimated the setback at 20 feet. <br />Aanson pointed out that there is a relatively new house <br />in the area, as well as a new garage which are very <br />close to the road. Hanson suggested that the road <br />pavement may not be centered within the right-of-way. <br />Scalze pointed out that one justification for granting <br />the variance would be that the structure already <br />exists. Scalze noted that justification is necessary <br />in order to grant the variance and not set a precedent. <br />The Planner pointed out that the applicant is not <br />asking for a setback variance, but is planning to <br />continue the existing non-conforming setback. It was <br />pointed out that when the Saxon Lanes added on to their <br />building, they were allowed to continue their <br />non-conforming setback. <br />Blesener suggested that if the CUP and variance are <br />approved, the present non-conforming situation will <br />continue to exist. Blesener suggested that this was an <br />opportunity to clean up the area and put the situation <br />into conformance. Blesener suggested the increase in <br />value proposed for the structure, may prohibit the <br />future upgrading of Little Canada Road. <br />Scalze asked if there was any justification for <br />qranting the variance. <br />The City Planner replied that he felt the issue was <br />purely an economic one, and that type of justification <br />is excluded from the Code. The Planner indicated that <br />from a precedent standpoint, the Council must be <br />comfortable that any other house in the same situation, <br />not meeting setbacks, havinq no buildable area on the <br />lot, would warrant a similar variance. <br />Scalze asked if the house was habitable as it currently <br />exists. <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.