Laserfiche WebLink
/ <br />lUVUtBS OF KB6DIAR OROHO COUHCIL MBBTIliG FEBRUARY 13 r 1989 <br />ZOWIR6 FILE «1334-RBBSRS CORTIRUED <br />was brought forth, ths Council was not certain as to the square <br />footage of the four lots along the northern property line. They <br />also uncertain as to whether there was a need for additional <br />controls with the enlarged building pads. The matter was <br />referred back to the Planning Commission so that they could <br />determine potential impact of construction on the four enlarged <br />building pads. The Planning Commission recommended that the side <br />setback of the no grading/restricted development areas be <br />exoanded from 30* to 40* and found no need for further controls. <br />Councilmember Goetten stated that she had no further concerns <br />regarding this application. <br />It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by <br />Councilmember Nettles, to approve this item. Motion, Ayes-4, <br />Nays-0, Motion passed. <br />#1362 PAUL HAUSER <br />2801 CASCO POXET ROAD <br />VARXAECBS <br />RBSOLUKOE lain^^ by City Administrator Bernhardson, this was a <br />request for an average lakeshore setback variance. Originally, <br />the applicants were also in need of a hardcover variance, but <br />have since revised their proposal so as to remove 700 s.f. of <br />hardcover, rather than the 417 s.f. recommended by the Planning <br />Commission. <br />The Hausers were oresent for this matter and had no <br />questions or comments. <br />It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by <br />Councilmember Peterson to adopt Resolution #2577, in accordance <br />with the Planning Commission recommendations. Motion, Ayes*4, <br />Nays-0, Motion passed. <br />#1364 EDiriH GAGE <br />480 TORKAMA ROAD <br />CORDITZORAL USB PERMIT <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron <br />explained that the applicant was proposing to construct a 6 wide <br />walkway through a wetland and partially within the 0-75 zone. <br />Mr. David Stockdale, the Contractor, explained that the 6* <br />width was preferred because of the length of the walkway. it <br />would offer more stability and more room for passing. <br />Councilmember Goetten expressed her concern about approving <br />420* of hardcover within the 0-75* zone. She felt it would * <br />precedent to allow new hardcover in that area. She asked vmy it <br />would not be more practical, from a safety standpoint, to build <br />the walkway 4* in width with a railing? Mr. Stockdale said that <br />the railings would have more of a vertical visual impact.