Laserfiche WebLink
k-- <br />H-^y- ' <br />r.- - '• <br />;:i ,rt h~ <br />ml <br />U <br />•■?yl ‘ <br />- /*-4 t <br />" '- V’ <br />^' 7 ‘S'^ <br />rV-Sf: <br />IIto- <br />>|-V <br />y - ■ .•• <br />w:. <br />rV-:^-*’. <br />[is <br />""rUVi- <br />-•,/■■*» <br />I <br />■: :'^:>•> <br />m{ <br />;^-v:-.' <br />r <br />ei <br />m. <br />iK'^yy <br />l^t\I-'h '^-1 - <br />~My.-r;- <br />m:ttter <br />Mabusth stated that she had spoken to the applicant today <br />and he indicated that tlie structure will ine?t the )5 foot <br />setback. <br />Johnson asked how long the temporary building will remain in <br />this location. <br />Mabusth stated that the process will take five to six years <br />to complete. <br />Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 8;26 p.m. <br />It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Johnson, to recommend <br />that Council approve application #1641, a Commercial Site Plan <br />Review for locating a temporary structure on property owned by <br />Richard Keaveny at 3425 Shoreline Drive. All voted aye. Motion <br />carried. <br />(|7)10H1IK: file *1642-KEITH « NOLA SWANSON <br />75 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH <br />TARIABCB-PUBLIC HEARING <br />Keith Swanson was presetit, and at 7:25 <br />the Public Hearing. <br />pm. Kelley opened <br />Gaffron summarized the iiformation provided in his memo <br />dated May 15, 1991, pertaining to Swanson's application. He <br />stated that the request for a nide setback Variance stems from <br />the need to maintain a suitable buffer zone between the alternate <br />drainfield site and the proposed house. <br />Rowlette asked if access to the house would be achieved from <br />Stubbs Bay Road as opposed to Watertown Road. <br />Gaffron replied, "There is no intent to use Watertown Road, <br />.and ii fact constructing a iriveway to W.itertown R^ad would <br />negate the use of the alternate drainfield." <br />Bellows referred to Gaffron's notation in his memo that this <br />property is located across the street from property that is zoned <br />t%#o acres. She suggested that such a reference not be made in <br />any othar documents as it may place the City in a precarious <br />situation. Bellows also indicated that she w's having a <br />difficult time with this application. She said, 'I am pleased <br />with the aspect of combining the two lots. However..." <br />Kelley agreed with Bellows that the Planning Commission <br />vionsistently takes the stand that new construction must conform <br />to all aspects of the Zoning Code. He said, "In this case, the <br />applicant has acquired additional property br>cause h«? had a <br />deficient lot. He is doubling the amount of acreage and by doing <br />so, is providing a primary and alternate drainfield site." <br />- 8 -