CC 10-13-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---- - ----.---- - ----- . Minutes of Regular Council Meeting October 13, 1981 After discussion, Wingert moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council approve the variance for a 6 foot high solid fence as requested on lots 9 and 10, based on the unique exposure to traffic, li gh ts and other unsightly aspects of the corner. In further discussion, it was suggested that the need for a soUd fence along the side lot line on lot 9 has bot been substantiated. MoUon did not carry (Wingert, Johnson voting in favor of the mo tion; Woodburn, McAlliater voting in oppos1 Uon) (2 -2) . Wingert moved approval of a 6' high solid fence along the outer perillleter of lots 9 and 10, as indicated, but not the 96' extension on lot 9 (north/south portion). Motion carried (Win ge rt , Johnson, Woodburn voting in favor of the 1Il0tion; McAllister voting in opposition). (3-1). . Case No. 81-30, Variances for Garalle Addi Uon, 1658 Lake Johanna Boulevard Council was referred to Planning Memo (9-29-81), Board of Appeals report (10-3-81) , Planning Commission Minutes ( 10-7-81) and to transparency of aubject lot and surrounding area. Killer indicated the three variances that are needed to accom- modate the proposed garage addi Uon (wi th bedroom above); reported that the present garage ia not accessible as it exiats; explained that there is a substantial grade change on the lot; an addi Uon could be accommodated in another way, but because of the topog- raphy of the land, the proposal is reasonable. Mr. Wold explained that they anticipate, th rough to rrens procedure, that the land between the old and new Lake Johanna right-of-way 11nes will be added to the adjacent lots; .noted that the owners of the two lots to the west are also currently pursuing this - lot to the east has received the land. Kr. Wold re fe rred Council to letters from Mr. Shifsky and Mr. McGough stating that they hsve no objection to the variances re- quested. After discussion, Johnson moved, seconded by Wingert, that Council approve the three variances: 1. 1!:i' variance at northeast corner of the addi Uon (10' required - 8!:i' proposed) 2. 2!:i' variance at southwest corner of the addition (10' required - 7!:i' proposed) 3. 9' aggregate variance (25' required - 16 ' proposed) based on the 10 t topography, and limi ted options because of the narrownesa of the lot, and approve the front aetback variance to the exiating north property line, based on the knowledge that the front prope rty line will be at the new right-of-way line. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Case No. 81-31, Rear Setback Variance for Room Ad'ition - 1851 Lake Lane Council was referred to transparency of subject lot and adjoining . properties, to Board of Appeals re port (10-3-81), Planning COllllllia- sion re commen da ti onil (Minutes of 10-7-81) and to Planning Memo 10-29-81) . Miller reported that both the Board of Appeals and Planning Com- mission recommend a rear setback variance no greater than those on the two adjacent lots, one ia 6' and the other 8' from the property line. In discussion, some concern was expressed relative to the basis of bardship, and the fact that the house 18 al re ady at a 12' set- back variance. -4-