Laserfiche WebLink
^ % <br />minutes op the OROMO council meeting op DECEMBER 11, 1989 <br />ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED <br />CounciImember Callahan said that the road, regardless of <br />where the cul-de-sac is located, ought to go to the northern <br />boundary line of Lots 1, 2, and 3. <br />It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor <br />Grabek, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance in accordance <br />with the opinion of the City Attorney, which will require land <br />owners in the position of the Wear Subdivision ownership to <br />provide access to adjoining land owners and following such <br />preparation and in conjunction with it, the preliminary <br />subdivision be brought back for review, and is therefore tabled <br />at this time. Motion, Ayes=4, Goetten, Nay, Motion passed. <br />#1445 GREGORY C. PETERSON <br />1355 ARBOR STREET <br />VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />FURTHER CLARIPICATION OP COUNCIL’S KECOMMENDATION <br />Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were present for this matter. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson summ.;ri2ed the events leading <br />to this reconsideratxon of variance approvals. Bernhardson said <br />that the Public Works Director has denied the applicant's request <br />to keep Che fence in its present location in tho right-of-way. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that this is a two part, <br />application; the appeal of the administrative decision <br />disallowing the fence to be located in the right-of-way and the <br />height variance for the fence located within the 50' rear yard <br />setback area. <br />Mr. Petersen explained that he had indicated that he would <br />be installing a 6' fence and that was part of the building permit <br />apolication for the pool and the porch. He said that they <br />indicated at the Planning Commission Meeting that they intended <br />to replace the existing fence. Mr. Petersen said that they made <br />the same representations when they met with the Council. He said <br />that he is shocked to be back before the Council because he <br />thought he had covered everything the City required. He said <br />that he had all along asked the City staff if there was anything <br />missing from their application. Mr. Peterson said th^at the <br />Resolution only refers to the fence in one paragraph, but the <br />fencing was part of the application from the very beginning. <br />Mrs. Peterson said that she distinctly remembered talking of <br />replacing the existing fence at the Planning Commission Meeting. <br />Councilmember Goetten read a portion of the Planning <br />Commission minutes from that meeting. Goetten also recollected <br />the discussion tnat took place at the Council Meeting regarding <br />this matter. Goetten said that she did not believe any <br />discussion took place regarding a fence under 6' around the <br />property. <br />Mr. Peterson said that this was a terminology issue. He