Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Pile #1502 <br />May 2,1990 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />Exl|tibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />M <br />N <br />0 <br />P <br />Q <br />R <br />S <br />-Survey/Site Plan <br />-Staff Letter to Cook <br />-Cook's Report 3/26/90 <br />-Drainage Plans for 1985 Drainage Project <br />Adjacent To North Property Line <br />-Amended Drainage Plan <br />-Hilbelink Letter of 3/14/90 <br />-Letter to Neighbor to North <br />ExhibitT - Heikkila Letter 4/12/90 (Neighbor to <br />North's Attorney) <br />Exhibit U - Heikkila Letter 5/25/90 <br />Exhibit V - Floor Plan/Elevaton <br />Review of Application - <br />The Hilbelink variance application was reviewed by the Planning <br />Commission at their March 19th, April 16th, and May <br />The proposal involves a request for a lot area variance, <br />variLce for the proposed residence to Prospect Avenue s Une and <br />a height and placement variance for a privacy fence <br />street lot line on the south side (P- 'spect Avenue).Please review <br />Exhibit M. The fence variance was cone- tually denied ^j®pl"2ing <br />Commission at their March meeting. The .plication was <br />further review by the City Engineer of .e drainage concerns <br />neighbor to the immediate north and to Provide an amended drainage <br />pla? based on City Engineer's directives.The . ®°"‘=®^^st2ddrainagae was to minimize impact on the drainage way that existed <br />between the shared lot lines of the i-operty to the north and <br />Hilbelink property.Please review the enclosed <br />greater detail on this review.(Memos dated 3/14/90, 4/11/90) <br />Please review Exhibit Q. The amended drainage plan shows <br />drainage being directed predominantly to the <br />Street. Neighbor to the north appeared at all SlaL.te i <br />meetings and once again announced that ‘hey were willing to d^ <br />drainage easement over the drainage way within their portion ot .ne <br />property. <br />Mr. Hilbelink's letter of March 14, 1990 (Exhibit R) <br />he had no definite building plan for the improvement of the property <br />but advised that because of the substandard lot that he would stil 1 <br />ask for the side setback variance.It was his 5° Pt*°® * <br />house within the defined building e"/*l°P®^ ad^qM^^M o The PlanninQ Commission did not accept this as a q <br />re«on°'to g«nt S slL setback variance and advised the applicant <br />thartheir reco^endation would deal solely with ^ <br />^nfth^? at ?h° UT,e of the final d®v®l°P»®n;Side setbacK variance would be neccessary that this would requir <br />additional variance review. Prior to scheduling the applicat! <br />hefore the Mav 14th meeting of the Council, the applicant asked to <br />placed on the^Planning Commission agenda for reconsideration of the