Laserfiche WebLink
^ »■* OMMO O IMCIL OP DacBon 11. 1,„; r*,pon,l^n *4* «•rc^VV„^:."^who Won 1H• Pi^oposal was tha^ “*^**’*tandlng is that di».....Brown uld tn-V. tB. Sn <br />tV?Md. '»"P«»««tlon from Mr. win <br />‘ opinion hi would use iV n *»y th« <br />*“uh Ji.’V’rVrV?®* "*0 »PProv,d th. <br />isk»d whathar tha Wi11 • k j <br />■« •pplyln, to .ubdiWdi? «ctu.ny purcha.ed thl, <br />d«.‘. '■• '“• •>•«> th. clo.ln, to porch... <br />'“-'S <br />•id that Mrs wk4.. <br />•PUctlon “;h"?h‘.‘*M'u?.« «' t-. Prop.rty. <br />'•B askad wheth^.- ..i. <br />•”'« b.i„, cov.n.nt. w.r. <br />•> that What now ,. <br />is St’fflcioBt. <br />NXBOTBS OP TBS OROHO COOHCXL mnG OF DBCl lip 1989•i -♦>SOmilG PILE fl2B9>WILL CONTIEICounciInambar Callahan said that the roadp regardless of where the cul-de-sac is located, ought to go to the northern boundary line of Lots 1. 2, and 3.It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabekd to direct staff to prepare an ordinance in accordance with the opinion of the City Attorney, which will require land owners in the position of the Wear Subdivision ownership to p^'OVlde access to adjoining land owners and following such preparation and in conjunction with it. the preliminary subdivision be brought back for review, and is therefore tabled at this time. Motion. Ayes>4. Goetten. Nay. Motion passed. <br />#1445 GREGORY C. PETERSOH <br />1355 ARBOR STREET <br />VARIABCE/COEDITIOHAL 08E PERMIT <br />PORTHER CLARIPICATIOE OP COOECIL'S RECOMMEMDATIOII <br />Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were present for this matter. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson summarized the events leading <br />to this reconsideration of variance approvals. Bernhardson said <br />that the Public Works Director has denied the applicant's request <br />to keep the fence in its present location in the 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. Peterson explained that he had indicated that he would <br />be installing a 6* fence and that was part of the building permit <br />application for the pool and the porch. He said that they had <br />Indicated at the Planning Commission Meeting that they intended <br />to replace the existing fence. Mr. Peterson 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 that 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 />CounciImember Goetten read a portion of the Planning <br />Commission minutes from that meeting. Goetten also recollected <br />the discussion that 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 €' around the <br />property. <br />Mr. Peterson said that this was a terminology issue. He