My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 08181987
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1987
>
PL PACKET 08181987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:35:36 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:35:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1987
SP Name
PL PACKET 08181987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
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
1 -4- • <br /> 2 Staff report -Mr. Childs ' July 17th memorandum, which, along with a <br /> copy of his June 12th memorandum, but had been included in <br /> 4 the agenda packet; <br /> 5 -the City Manager read aloud the letter from the law firm <br /> 6 which clarified the issue of ownership and reported he <br /> 7 had read the letter to the City Attorney over the phone; <br /> 8 -said the City Attorney had concurred the clarification of <br /> 9 ownership had been acceptable in terms of making a valid . <br /> 10 application and, more importantly, since the variance <br /> 11 runs with the land and not the owners, the City Attorney <br /> 12 had perceived the June 22nd letter would be an accept- <br /> 13 able basis on which the Commission could take action. <br /> 14 Commission Response <br /> 15 Wagner: -indicated he believed the question of ownership had been <br /> 16 satisfactorily clarified by the attorneys; <br /> 17 -said he had concluded after reading the literature, the <br /> 18 Manager had provided in the agenda packet related to <br /> 19 recent Supreme Court decisions, that the City, would <br /> 20 literally be running the risk of being accused of "tak- • <br /> 21 ing" that property if construction were denied alto- <br /> . 22 gether; <br /> 23 -added, however, that he perceived the City would be <br /> 24 permitted to impose certain criteria for the constru- <br /> 25 ction including the requirement that the driveway could <br /> 26 only exit off Roosevelt. He also said he would be <br /> 27 reluctant to recommend a variance for a setback which <br /> 28 would be less than half of what the City Ordinance <br /> 29 requires; <br /> 30 -pointed out that any questions about drainage would <br /> 31 have to be settled before the City would issue a <br /> 32 building permit. <br /> 33 London -said he would be very uncomfortable allowing a house <br /> 34 size less than the Ordinance required and ask whether <br /> 35 there had been many similar variances granted in the <br /> 36 past; <br /> 37 <br /> 38 -indicated he perceived the neighbors ' concerns about <br /> 39 snow storage obstructing drivers' view might be -legi- <br /> 40 timate, -.although he had noticed there were also build- <br /> 41 ings, fences and large .spruce trees in the same neigh- <br /> 42 borhood which probably obstructed the .view more than • <br /> 43 this house would. <br /> 0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.