Laserfiche WebLink
� OP.ONO COUNCIL TZEETING HELD MAY 10, 1976 Page 11 <br /> a Planning Commission P�ieeting - P1ay 3, 1976 VARIANCE <br /> 1.430 Cherry Place <br /> • Planning Commission recommended approval of (Continued) <br /> aariance as proposed due to lay of land and <br /> � tree removal hardships. <br /> � Ru.tler moved, Massengale seconded, to approve <br /> � the variance request for David Opheim, 1430 <br /> Cherry Place, as per the Planning Commission <br /> � minutes of May 3, 1976e Motion, Ayes (5) - <br /> nTays (0) , <br /> � <br /> � H�nry r7uhich, Building & Zoning Administrator, FINAL PLAT <br /> � stated that the Planning Commission recommended 2980 Casco Point Road <br /> approval of the final plat for Kenneth Oien, <br /> � 2930 Casco Point Road, subject to payment of <br /> �2,000 park dedication fees, <br /> � <br /> i�2cCombs-ICnutson Associates, Engineer's letter <br /> da�ed I�Iay 10, 1976 e <br /> � "��e have investigated the past assessments in <br /> � regard to the subject property and find the <br /> r"�llowing charges should be levied in regard to <br /> � the proposed divisione One half of a sewer <br /> unit should be collected in the amount of $112, 50 <br /> � and one fu?.1 water unit should be collected in <br /> ` :he amount of $580 for a total of $692.50. " <br /> [°JPlsh moved, Butler seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTION #682 <br /> � #�632 , A :' �a�-olution Approving The Registered Land RLS No. <br /> � ^urvey Noo for Kenneth Oien, 2980 Casco Point 2980 Casco Point Road <br /> ��:oad, as per the Planning Commission minutes of <br /> � PIay 3, 1976, with park dedication fees of $2,000 <br /> �cir.g paid, plus, $692.50 as per the Engineer's <br /> � ?��ter of tIay 10, 1976. r�7otion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) . <br /> • <br /> � Ii�nry Muhich, Building & Zoning Administrator, VARIANCE <br /> sica�ed that Lorenz Kutz, 1462 Park Drive, is 1462 Park Drive <br /> � requesting a variance to build a new garage 3 ft. <br /> from the north property line (10 ft, required) e <br /> � Tnis new garage would replace a single garage <br /> which was previously non-conforming in that it <br /> � ���as located only 2 ft. from the south proPerty <br /> � �?r�o The lot is extremely narrow. Therefore, <br /> the new garage will have to be placed as near as <br /> � ���ssible to the north lot line to provide <br /> adequate space for a turn-around driveway from <br /> � �:he side entry of the garage. The lot elevation <br /> drops quite suddenly toward the rear of the lot. <br /> r C�n.struction further to the rear would require <br /> �uite a bit of �ill to bring it to grade. <br /> � I �aould, therefore, suggest we dispense cvith the <br /> wo�}c session review and recommend approval of <br /> � a 7 ft, variance. The 3 ft. setback does comply <br /> �ti�ith State requirements. (Continued) <br />