CC 09-10-1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M3nuies of Regular C'ouncfl Meettng Page Twc� 5ept. 10, t979 - that "retaii sales", as defined, xould inctude sauns operationro; feels a regulatory ord(nance couid be adopted.later, if exTsttng• exctusionary approach does not suf#ice. �Y'anson moved to �able the matter, seconded by W'oodburn. MotTen did not carry (F�anson vpting for tAe motion; Woodburn, Crfchton, Wingert, Grepeau vo#ing io opposftlon). After further the draft of !lned ir, hfs Arden Manor Community Bufldinq . � N7oodburr �•�por?ed that the Community Sutiding at Arden Manor is stilf compfetely lockad and wi#hout a caretake r, hours are posied 8 a.m. 6 p.m.; clerical office is tn Rosevtlle; rentaEs are paid to a box number, Woodburn noted that the Specla"1 Use Permit requtres a ciearly lighted communtty bufldlag accessible to the tenants of Arden Mano r, feels not providing same {s a"clear vtolaffan of the Speciat Use Per�nit and Ctty Code.° After discussion, Co�incil au4horized'Ctty At?orrtey Lynden and Prosecut(ng Attorney Ftlla to proceed with no4i.fication o# the vlola- tlons to the City Code and fines pursuant there#o, and to require rectification of the vlolation. REPORT OF 41LLAGE PLANNER ORIYN M9lLER 79 • It etion - Mfiler referred Counct0 to his report of 8 28/79 and to transparsncles af attached sketch tndicattng the proposed lot split and consolidatfon to resolve an existing driveray encroachment problem. Mtl`!er reported fihat the Planning Commission recoma+ends Councii approvaf b�c8use ihe proposal is a pract(cal solutlnn ta ao exlsiing situatiort xhtch doas not negatively affect the Ctty, netghborfng propertles ar the subject properties. Counc3l exnresseA concern re erantfny a vartence �hich creatas an iltegalify, when'an access easement can resolve the encroachment. Waod`,,�urn m��ved, seconded by Crlch4on, to tabie the matter for faur weeks or t� a mseting arhen appltcant can be present. Motion carried unanimously. i Crichton movod, secondec! by Wfngert, that Council approve a 7 f# side sei^back variaace based on the substandard log wtdth and it ts not F�creasing #he ex3sting garage setback variance. Motioo carrled unanlmously. Case No. 79-25, Front Setb.ack Yarfance - A W Ghenev 1732 Venus Avenue Miltar referred Council to hts r�port� ofi 8/28779;`expiained that the' proposed fi ft addltion to the front ot the axisting house requires a 1.83 ft front setback vartance. Milter noted fhat the house had a serious fiire and, in remodel�ing the kltchen, appiicanfi desires discussion, Attorney Lynden aas requssted to re-word the Sauna Orritnance, incorporating tha changes oat- Junc !`., 1479 te�ter, tor Council•'s consideration. 23 ��r�s � o r v v � e n p e u I � . .� �..,�.,.,. MSS�ar ref�rred Councii to his reGort of 8/28i7g, aod to transpar- encies of attached sketcfies depicting Yhe existing and proposed garages. l9iller reported that the iot is subst�ndard in width. t60' xride)y extsting sfngle-car garage is 3 ft from the side property line, the 1•+ro..car garage repiacement is proposed 14' from the rear of the house and 3 ft from the side property line; reported that the Plannlr�g CommPssion recommends Gouncil approval of the 7 ft varlance, `' since it do�s not exceed the existing and the subs#sndacd lot-width and pooi and targe tree locatio� crea?e a hardshlp in siting the nev� garaoe to fihe south and mest. Milier said a 5 ft setback is considered desdrable, but would further reduce the maneuvering areas.' _.q_