Laserfiche WebLink
Plahnin^ Commission Meeting of January 17, 1983 Page 4 <br />mm.6. Norton and Balgaard are to advise the Zoning <br />Administrator by February 1, 1983, as to the <br />desired lot line realignment 30', 40', or 50' <br />Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). <br />VARIANCE - #720 <br />Doug deMalignon <br />w.me>W: <br />Mi <br />raT <br />F'lm <br />L.:-V.' .,.:J <br />Mr. & Mrs. deMalignon were present to discuss their <br />variance application with the Planning Commission. <br />Steve Wilson, attorney for H. R. Johnston, was present <br />and stated that Mr. Johnston was in favor of the <br />variance as requested. <br />I’;. , . <br />■ ' 'vv-^ <br />Member Kelley stated that he was not in favor of the <br />fence. He felt that the trellis was enough. The <br />deMalignons showed the Commission pictures of their <br />property that is planted^with many types of flowers.i: <br />f f <br />Member Kelley moved. Member Goetten seconded, to <br />recommend approval of the after the fact portion of <br />the application of Doug deMalignon, 925 Willow Drive <br />South, permitting the 6* high trellis located at one <br />point within 3' of the right of way of the road outlot <br />to remain,based on the following findings: <br />1. <br />yy-mMM <br />The granting of the application is necessary for <br />the preservation and enjoyment of a substandard <br />property right of the applicant. <br />2.The granting of the variance will not inqpair the <br />public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general <br />welfare. <br />' y. L ' • <br />/ • <br />, -ifv . ♦ <br />3. Undue hardship for the applicant to replant the <br />many plantings dependent on the trellis. <br />W' <br />*jMiis approval is subject to the following conditions: <br />1. West access to be closed off by April 1, 1983. ^ <br />2. Sections of trellis located less than 3* from the <br />edge of the road right of way must be relocated. <br />^7, <br />■i j»>* <br />■ <br />3. Planning Commission would strongly suggest planting <br />for screening the trellis, <br />Planning Coasassion denied the proposed 6* high privacy <br />fence portion of the variance application based on the <br />foU«.in9 finding.1 ^ ^ <br />1. Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship. <br />m <br />1 <br />2. Closeness of privacy fence to road right of way <br />would create health, safety and welfare hazards. <br />(ContinuedI <br />ue <br />i L. <br />- <br />V-‘ .mfc.mA i 7 * ' it •• ^ .