Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the Regul~ouncil Meeting, May 11, 198~ <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />CASE NO. 87-12: <br />FRONT SETBACK <br />VAR.. ANDERSON <br /> <br />Council was referred to Planner's report (4-10-87), <br />Planning Commission minutes (5-6-87) and Board of <br />Appeals minutes (4-23-87). <br /> <br />Miller reviewed the background of the Minor Subdivision of this parcel, <br />approved by Council in December 1986. The parcel does not have public street <br />~ frontage and is accessed by private easement. <br /> <br />The Planner identified the steep slope at the rear of the Anderson lot and <br />noted that if the applicant maintains the 40 ft. front setback, the rear of the <br />proposed house will be at the base of the slope. The applicant haa applied for <br />a 20 ft. variance, to avoid drainage problems and to create a more usable rear <br />yard. <br /> <br />Council was referred to a letter from Engineer Barry Peters (4-22-87), stating <br />he has reviewed the request and is comfortable with the variance as proposed. <br />Peters asked the Planner to relate to the Council that the letter should not be <br />considered as a recommendation for or against approval of the requested <br />variance. <br /> <br />Miller explained that the property is very isolated from Lake Johanna Blvd. and <br />the two adjacent homes south of the parcel are setback approximately 10-15 ft. <br />from the access easement, which already establishes a lesser setback. <br /> <br />Futhermore, Miller advised that at the time Council approved the subdivision of <br />these two parcels, he had commented that the lots would be buildable without <br />variances, however, the applicant has chosen to request the variance to create <br />a more usable rear yard and to cause less disruption to the rear slope of the <br />property. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Council discussed if the property owners to the south of the parcel Would be <br />affected by drainage problems. <br /> <br />Clerk Aministrator adVised that any improvements of the access easement must be <br />approved by the Engineer. <br /> <br />Planner commented that approval of the requested variance would not relieve the <br />property owner of his responsibility not to create further drainage problems, <br />as stipulated in the conditions of approval of the ~inor subdivision. <br /> <br />There was discussion relative to construction of the home on the parcel without <br />the requested variance. <br /> <br />Mark Anderson, applicant. advised that an architect designed the home so that <br />it would not create further drainage problems for the adjacent properties to <br />the south. Anderson advised he is working with the Barry Peters on the <br />improvement of the access easement and has discussed the creation of a culvert <br />to divert water from the southerly lots. He noted that all the conditions <br />stipulated in the minor subdivision approval have been accomplished, with the <br />exception of the access easement improvement. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Moved by Hansen, seconded by Sather, that Council <br />approve Case No. 87-12: Front Setback Variance, on the basis of the hardship <br />imposed by the steep rear slope of the land, the parcel is located on a private <br />roadway that is isolated from the main street, and that other homes south of <br />this site are not in compliance with current setback requirements. Motion <br />carried. (Hansen, Sather, Peck, Winiecki voting in favor: Woodburn opposed) <br />(4-1) <br /> <br />CASE NO. 87-15: <br />SITE PLAN REVIEW <br />& VAR, ALPO FOODS <br /> <br />Planner Miller reviewed his report of 4-29-87, and <br />referred Council to Planning Commission minutes of <br />5-6-87. <br /> <br />The Planner stated the lot is currently zoned I-I and adjacent to a residential <br />development, therefore, a 75 ~t. setback is required. Since the Planning <br />Commission meeting he had discovered a zoning map, which was in effect prior to <br />the-State releasing the land proposed for Highway 51, that shows the boundary <br />line for the zoning district along the rear property line for Alpo Pet Foods. <br />After discussion with the Zoning Administrator, it was determined that Alpo had <br />not acquired any of the land released by the State and, therefore a variance <br />. was necessary. <br /> <br />Miller pointed out that since the variance was identified after the Board of <br />Appeals held their meeting, Council may consider referring the variance to the <br />Board of Appeals for review and recommendation back to Council. <br />