Laserfiche WebLink
mechanical. It was suggested the Lees contact their alarm company to work with <br />them on resolving these false alarms. Council also commented on the cost to the <br />Town for the deputies to respond to these false alarms and therefore the reason for <br />the charges. <br />Mrs. Lee, 12950 Alta Tierra Lane, commented on their request and explained that <br />they left the alarm on because of several instances they had had with rocks being <br />thrown at the house and someone knocking at their door. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Siegel and <br />passed unanimously by all members present to deny the request from Mr. and Mrs. <br />Lee for a refund of false alarm charges. <br />6.2 Study Session regarding issues on Clausen Subdivision, Lot 6 -- Site <br />Constraints <br />As stated under the Planning Commission report at the beginning of the meeting, <br />the Planning Commission had requested the Council schedule a study session on <br />this application to discuss the possibility of a variance for this project before the <br />applicant undertook a redesign. The staff report prepared by the Planning Director <br />included the concern of the Commission that the house design and location that <br />was currently being proposed for this site were not appropriate but that the design <br />had been somewhat dictated by the site constraints including the undo setback from <br />the emergency access road. <br />Planning Commissioner Comiso commented on the setback and the easement and <br />noted that the house was seriously constrained because of the easement. She <br />believed the house needed to be sited more appropriately. <br />Siegel did not believe the proposed house fit the lot and also stated that the story <br />pole requirement should be strictly enforced. Siegel believed the easement was <br />principally an emergency access and did not understand why a variance needed to be <br />discussed. Johnson referred to the issue of a variance and commented that it was <br />definitely a unique lot. He thought the house could be set closer to the driveway. <br />Council did not foresee any problems with a variance being asked for on this unique <br />lot. <br />The Town Planner referred to the Code on setback requirements and the City <br />Attorney noted that variances and site developments were approved by the <br />Planning Commission and did not go to Council unless someone appealed the <br />Commission's decision. <br />March 2, 1994 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />