Laserfiche WebLink
1 } <br /> City Council Meeting Minutes <br /> • May 25, 1999 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 1 Cavanaugh thanked Mr. Bridges for his efforts in maintaining the cemetery which is a <br /> 2 wonderful park, adding the residents are the beneficiaries. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Motion by Cavanaugh, second by Thuesen to approve a sideyard setback variance request <br /> 5 from Sunset Memorial Cemetery. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 2. Dave Sperry: for 4XXX Fordham Drive, lot width and lot area variance requests. <br /> 10 Mr. Stille explained that a request is recommended for approval by the Planning <br /> 11 Commission for lot width and lot area variances on property which Arvid and Eleanor <br /> 12 Johnson intend to sell to Mr. and Mrs. David Sperry. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Marks stated there is clearly a hardship in this case as created by City ordinance. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Cavanaugh stated a reference had been made to water problems in the area, and asked if <br /> 17 that issue had been resolved. Stille stated a resident of that neighborhood, who is a civil <br /> 8 engineer, indicated he believes water problems in that neighborhood are caused by <br /> inadequate pipes on Silver Lake Road and not the addition of 1 home. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Motion by Marks, second by Faust to approve lot width and lot area variance requests for <br /> 22 4XXX Fordham Drive, David Sperry, Buyer. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 3. Coppo Partners; for 2837 Anthony Lane South: rear yard setback variance <br /> 27 request. <br /> 28 Stille explained that a request is recommended for approval by the Planning Commission <br /> 29 for rear yard variance request by Coppo Partners to construct a warehouse addition at <br /> 30 2837 Anthony Lane. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Marks asked what hardship was associated with this request. Stille stated the building <br /> 33 was built in 1972 while the zoning code was modified in 1978 and as such the code <br /> 34 created the hardship. Marks asked whether the proposed addition requires a variance <br /> 35 because of its placement in relation to the existing building. Stille stated the variance <br /> 36 relates to the whole structure because it was grandfathered in. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Faust stated the building is nonconforming at its present site, and the addition requires a <br /> 39 variance as it is being added to a nonconforming use. <br />