HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.1331 Riverside Dr.1975-CU-2P & z 3 -18 -75
Johnson questioned how far back was the lot from the stream
and Charles Paterson noted it was 18' back. Paterson also
noted that there was a small stream or ditch running through
the property.
Jack Jenkins arrives.
C n _t_ --::, o : _ __ n•.__ -: u: t G 'i. .'t in;;
that Paterson should have to replace scrub oak, etc and
members ac-r—_ that it should be jest major revegatation.
a for. L��,:, n_
or a vorb_:i one at this point. Kane advised just an in or:r,a;
agreement should be sufficient.
Motion
Otte moved to approve the development plan conditional upon
the site being inspected by the Planning office before a
certificate of eccupanc_ is issued and any n;ajor revegetatinc
be done in the event of any erosion. Seconded by Hunt.
All in favor, motion carried.
Use Determination:
Jeff Finesilver, owner of lots 1 -8 Riverside Subdivision,
"nursery"
F inesil ve r h ouse
requested a use determination whether the allowed
in R -6 in the code means a child care center or a greenhouse.
He would like to add a nursery addition onto his already
existing house. Johnson said that Finesilver, should have
been able to tell by the other uses allowed in R -6.. Otte
questioned what the original intention was and Stanford said
that they had intended a child care nursery. Schiffer said
that he agreed with Johnson and noted that the new code
doesn't have the word "nursery" in it because it was too
ambiguous and instead uses "day care ".
Motion
Johnson moved to deny the request for a use determination on
a tree nursery in R -6. Seconded by Otte. All in favor,
motion carried.
SUBDIVISION - Exem.
Location of this duplex is 114 E. Sleeker Street. This is
Ferrin Duplex
an alreadv existing structure and the owners would like to
condominimize the top and bottom. The structure is on
plotted lots and blocks. Kane noted that they had provided
off- street parking by having a concrete slab in the front of
the building that is used now. The City Attorney ruled that
it should be clearly marked as an encroachment in case
Bleeker Street is widened. The owners have planned for
future development by providing four parking spaces in the
back of the building, access by alley. Johnson questioned
whether there would be easy access in the back. William
Jordan, attorney representing the applicant, noted that
there eras plenty of width. Hunt thought that they should
condition approval on the owners providing parking if needed
Schiffer questioned whether they had met all the design
requirements and Kane noted that all improvements were in
order and Jordan said that they would have no problems with
putting on the plat the condition that the back is reserved
for future parking.
Motion
Hunt moved to grant the exemption from Subdivision Regulatio
under 20 -10 -c of the code conditioned upon an agreement
of the applicant to remove parking from the front of the
building at the request of the City and in addition be
required to provide the off - street parking,netr. Seconded
by Johnsen. All in favor, except for Otte who abstained.
Motion carried.