Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1110 <br />April 8, 1987 <br />Pa ' of 5 <br />As par.- the c-)nditior.al a pc mit phase of the application dealing <br />with access ory structures on thrcugh tots, Planning Commission dire(.Led <br />that a ::ondi.tion 'or the deck tennis court structure be that it may not be <br />used after 1G • -).m. The enclosed resolution ha_ been drafted per the <br />Planning CommissioT. _ ecommendatir:ii. In light of a recent memo from the <br />City Attorney's office that dealt -ith the issue of "reasr)nable ., (Jiti-.)ns" <br />being attached to the grantirg o conui_t`•ial use permits, staff has asked <br />the City Attorney to confirm th,� conoi , ion n` curfew as "reasonable" or <br />_ . ted to original intent of this sr_, i 4" --t ion. <br />Septic testing was attempted he property, (review Exhibit L). <br />r_af f has reviewe-.l the soils map and si r• of the proposed i nprovement. The <br />_:oils consist of Heydcr and Lester so.;ls, providing good drainage with <br />moderate permeability c:,aracteristirs. The topograpi,y is predominately a <br />gentle sloping terrain. Staff c- ee no pro;.-)l�m with finding suitable <br />area for an en -site sewacte treaL;r..ent sys' em. Mr. Sch4-mers confirms <br />suitable area for an on -site sewage disposal system. �- c.-• u 1 d recommend <br />that Ccunci1 not delay in acting on this applit tion the required <br />septic t sting has n '_ be, •i complet- '. <br />P l ann i nq Commission Rescomme- ions <br />to appro• a lot area, a- )t width variances the property located <br />i.t 0 Shoro i ine Drive to construction of a new residen^e finding <br />na- the size and width o pr,r,erty is consistent with devFlope- <br />a.: jat.ent tots an.-1 exceeds tji.. ire the surrour "- ; 1 acre per lot <br />deve 1 oprr,,_nt of Fox Hills by 40 to 4 ` nt. To appi . a conditional use <br />perm4* for proposed accessory struct, a pool and deck tennis court, on <br />d t.iiough : ot, finds '}ey meet th equi ed 50 feet setback in both <br />front/rear street yarc' :^ c - a b0 feet setback encroachment beyond <br />the avr-r.E.ge setback of and a ?0 fee,,- encroachment for the <br />eck based or, one or lowing findings: <br />i. If the ho : ­rthey north, it would require the total <br />r�mc,%,- r of •! + • L .c re•. s co the rear lot. <br />�h- setback 1— 5�'G+ L. for t xistinq structures on the <br />ac. `acen+ lo.s .,re unusual and place severe restri=tions in the <br />deve`opment of the middle lot. <br />3. T- vool and neck i;truc*ures are built at or !>elnw grade and will <br />not create i lake viewing ha-rier foi adjacent residences. <br />Q. The . -,-site evaluator has c•onf it —rod that an on -site sewage <br />Rn­., 1 system ca► be f r.sta I 1 et c,n the site • r,' that there is <br />- _able -ea to 1t it. 1 a f urture alternate syster- <br />