Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 09/26/05 <br />Minutes - Page 22 <br /> <br />hardship test findings specified in the staff report. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that each Councilmember who <br />stood in opposition would need to articulate their rationale for <br />him and staff to present findings on October 24, 2005 to comply <br />with legal requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan took issue with the Council attempting to <br />postpone approval of the variance request; opining that her <br />concerns still stood. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her <br />concerns related to the applicant's request to subdivide a lot that <br />would not meet minimum lot requirements where no hardship <br />existed for doing so and legal expectations under ordinance. <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted the factors due to central character <br />of the locality; driveway location; removal of trees; significant <br />change in character of the neighborhood; negative impacts on <br />surrounding properties related to drainage; and the petition from <br />17 households received tonight concerning density and crowding <br />of the neighborhood, and creating less privacy. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka noted Councilmember Schroeder's <br />concern with the amount of setback required on each side of the <br />driveway, particularly on lot 2814; noting that the location of the <br />proposed driveway at 2.5' from the property to the north, <br />impinged on the properties and the purpose of the setback to get <br />cars away from neighboring properties. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder opined that, the review criteria for a <br />flag lot was not correctly interpreted, and that a 20' minimum <br />requirement for 10' of pavement was his interpretation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough opined that the applicant hadn't <br />produced a hardship, but the proposed variance created more of a <br />hardship on surrounding properties and devaluation of their <br />properties; and that the applicant had an option to make the lot <br />compatible with City building code. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson suggested that the Council would also <br />need to determine why the application did not meet minor <br />subdivision provisions as outlined in City Code, Section <br />1104.05E; and while not under the same 60-day review <br />