12-11-2000 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting 13 December 11, 2000 . 12. #2634 G & G Holding Company, 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue —Lot Line Rearrangement — Resolutions No. 4582 and 4583— Continued would place their structure directly behind the Bockmann residence. She stated the view the neighbor enjoys is not over the service road, but the Goldberg's property to the south, over which he has no scenic easement. Jeff Johnson, of 1145 Loma Linda, stated that he would have a view over the service road if the brush were removed. Ms. Hurr stated that even if the brush were removed, the new house being built on parcel B would block his view of the lake. Kelley stated that if the service road is vacated, the trees will be on private property and the Goldberg's could do whatever they like with them. Sansevere stated that a view of the lake is not the Council's concern. Weinberger questioned if accessory structures would be allowed within 10 feet of the rear lot line, or if they should be restricted. Kelley replied the lot should be treated as any other lot in the City. Peterson moved, and Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4582 vacating the • platted right of way within the plat of Loma Linda, and Resolution No. 4583 approving a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for properties located at 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenue, and owned by Stanley and Luella Goldberg, removing any reference to a 50 foot setback. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 13. #2635 G & G Holding Company, 1140 Loma Linda Avenue— Variances- Resolution No. 4584 Weinberger stated that the applicants proposed to construct a new residence on parcel B based on the lot line rearrangement being approved. They requested a variance to allow 1,417 s.f. (29.8 %) hardcover in the 75 – 250 foot lakeshore setback where 1,187 s.f. (25 %) is allowed. The applicants proposed one 9 X 20 foot parking area. Staff recommended a minimum area of an 18 X 30 foot (540 s.£) designated parking area, resulting in a final 75 – 250 foot zone hardcover of 1,777 s.f. (37.4 %). No garage has been proposed for the property. No garage could be located on any portion of the property because of the sewer line and required utility easement. The only option would be to build a garage that is tucked -under the house. The applicants stated they have no intention of adding a garage because of the limitations of the site, and because of the proposed development, one could never be added. Mayor Jabbour asked if • the applicant understands that a garage could never be added to the site. Ms. Hurr stated