CC PACKET 10141997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 23, 1997 Page 4 • 1 Mr. Preussner stated that was his first question to the neighbor. He noted he has an 2 appointment set up on Thursday with a big Law Firm. 3 Marks stated the best approach would be to find someone to mediate the situation. He noted 4 State Law requires such findings as unusual shape of the property, unusual topography, etc. to 5 grant a variance. These conditions are not present in this situation and there are no grounds 6 to grant a variance. He suggested mediation to solve the problem without confrontation. 7 Mr. Preussner noted he had contacted the Pollution Control Agency and they will not get 8 involved as this is a residential property. 9 Councilmember Faust asked if Mrs. Gable had been present at the Planning Commission 10 meeting. 11 Commissioner Bergstrom stated she had not been present. 12 Motion by Marks, second by Faust to deny the variance to fence height request of Bernard 13 Preussner, for 3209 Skycroft Drive, as it does not meet the requirements to grant a variance. 14 Mr. Preussner asked if he could have a transcript of the hearing. 15 City Manager Morrison stated minutes arent official until after being approved at the October • 16 14, 1997 meeting. 17 Motion carried unanimously. 18 2. Ordinance 1997-008, re: Amendments to Lot Coverage and Parking 19 Requirements for Permitted Conditional Uses in R-1, Single Family Districts. 20 Commissioner Bergstrom reported this issue was initiated at the August Planning Commission 21 meeting when a concept review of an expansion/construction project was presented. 22 Bergstrom noted he had not been present at that meeting. 23 At the September 16 meeting, Staff presented suggested language that would govern permitted 24 and permitted conditional uses, that are not residential but are located in a residential district, 25 with regard to issues including building to lot coverage and parking requirements. The 26 Commission raised a number of questions with the proposed ordinance amendment including 27 the use of terminology and the non-specific parking requirements. There was a general 28 consensus of the Commission that a non-R-1 use does not perform the same as a residential 29 property and that Staff had a good start on the amendment. The amendment was referred 30 back to Staff for further revision. 31 Commissioner Bergstrom noted that the intent was not to reduce green space and that one 32 recommendation in regard to the language was to address the storm water drainage. He stated • 33 the goal of the Commission is to present the amendment to the Council at their October 28, 34 1997 meeting.