Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />DRAFT Minutes of <br />Monday, February 26,2007 <br />Page 12 <br />�1 Mr. Samuel advised that, using the City's consulting engineer, S.E.H., he <br />� would work with staff to provide the requested information regarding site <br />� traffic distribution, light pollution issues, and landscaping remedies, as well <br />� as other information as available. <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />�3 <br />�� <br />1 t� <br />�� <br />1� <br />�� <br />i� <br />1�. Continuation of Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution regarding <br />the Appeal of the Variance Board's Denial of the Request by Thomas <br />McDaniel for a Variance to the Wetland Setback at 527 Uwasso Hills <br />Drive (PF 3787) <br />Associate Planner Lloyd presented and reviewed the appeal by Thomas <br />McDaniel, 527 Owasso Hills Drive, of his variance request to construct an <br />addition, of approximately 15 by 18' in size that would reduce the setback <br />from the wetland to approximately 3 5'. <br />15 City staff recommended denial of the variance because no undue hardship <br />��� would be imposed on the property owner if the requirements of the Code <br />� � were strictly applied. <br />18 <br />1� <br />�r� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />2� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />2� <br />2� <br />3� <br />31 <br />�� <br />�� <br />3� <br />Mr. Stark noted receipt of an e-mail dated February 26, 2007, from Christer <br />Cederberg, in support of the variance request (attached). <br />Tom McDaniel, 527 Ow�sso Hills, Applicant <br />Mr. McDaniel provided an extensive review of his perception of events lead- <br />ing up to tonight's meeting and his application. Mr. McDaniei's comments <br />were provided in writing, identified as "Attachment A: New Information" <br />and made part of the Council packet, along with previous information pro- <br />vided by staff at past Variance Board and City Council meetings. <br />Mr. McDaniel reviewed wetland characteristics and perceived wetland <br />boundaries and his disagreement with those wetland boundaries and appar- <br />ent inconsistencies. Mr. McDaniel referenced a"Certificate of Survey," and <br />opined that it was the only legally binding document that should be consid- <br />ered. <br />�� City Attorney Anderson disagreed with Mr. McDaniel's comment that the <br />�� Certificate of Survey was the only legally binding document delineating <br />�� where wetland boundaries were located; and noted that the Certificate of <br />�� Survey was often recorded with the County Recorder, but the registered sur- <br />