CC 11-10-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

) . . , l Hinutes of Re gu lar Coun ci 1 Meeting November 10, 1980 c Af te r discussion, Wingert moved, seconded by Hanson, that Coun ci 1 gran t the two-foot side setback variance as reouested b as e d on the lot configuration, easements and marEh area. In further discussion I it was note d that the common 10 t line could be re-loca ted to put both houses into con f 0 rman ce (lot split and consolidation) . It was, however, the general con- sensus of Counci 1 tha t th is paper work would not warrant the costs involved, and the final effect would be unchanged. Motion carried unanimous ly. Case No. 80-41, Corner Lot Setback Variance Lot 5, Block 4 , Karth Lake South Council was re fe rred to Certificate of Survey of lot 5, block . 4, Karth Lake South showing proposed location of house at 30 ' setback from Wynridge Drive (40 ' from Wyncrest Lane) requiring a 10 I + setback variance (Ord. 213) . Wingert reviewed the Planning Commission recommendations. (l1inutes of 11-5-80) noted that the lot slopes from northeast to southwest and is apparently appropri ate for the walkout home as proposed. It was noted tha t the 10 t is slightly un de r size at 13,551 sq. ft. , that o rd. 213 requires a 40 ' setback from bo th streets (Ord. 99 had required a 20' setback from the side street) Ord. 99 was in effect when lot was platted. In discussion, it was noted th at if the h 0 us e were rotated on the 10 t, it co u 1 d probably mee t the setback requirements of Ord. 213. Winge rt reported tha t facing the h 0 us e on \-.'ynridge n-rive was considered by the developer, but th is is not desired by the home owner. Home owne r fce 1 s house is consistent wi th the neighborhood as proposed, and walkout area as sited is more desirable. In further dis cuss ion, it was suggested tha t the lot is appar- ently too small for the house proposed. It was the gene reI con- s ens us that the re are op tions that could work within the ordin- ance confines. Wingert move d that Council deny the 10 ' sideyard variance be- cause a sufficient hardship has not been indicated. Motion was seconded by Crichton. Crichton moved, seconded by Wingert, to table the motion to the next Council me e tin g . pending exploration of apparent options by the developer. Motion carried unanimously. Comprehensive Plan Status Report Wingert reported tha t the Planning Commission has gene rally con- curred with the revised Housing Element which is designed to meet the spirit of the Metro Council f ratnewo rk; reported th at the Land Use Plan is being prepared by Hiller, with input from Christoffersen regarding utilities plan (exis ting as well as impact of arsenal sewer, should this area devclop in the future) . . Winge rt reported tha t the Planning Commission anticipates com- pletion of the revised Comprehensive Plan by December 1980. Cas in 0 N i gh t - Me Gui res Inn Counci 1 was referred to a request from NcGuires for permit fo r ~lCas1no Night" , to be sponsored by Conved Corporation fa r its employees. Hr. Greg O'Connor, representative of the company tha t conducts "Casino Night", explained that the re are no I'gam- bling devices involved; no conside ration is obtained fo r the , opportunity to play; all is free to the players ",,'ho are give n 2 --------