12/04/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY CaMIL MTNO'TES - December 4, 1985 G. SPECIAL ORDERS: Item La) - Public Hearing - Lands of Rayden (continued): The Town Planner presented her report dated 11/26/85 which noted that the Site Developmnt Coamittes reanmended approval of the Special Land Use Permit for the proposed new residence at 26011 Torello Lane. van Terolen expressed concerns about the proposed grading and intense development planned for this lot. Staff stated that the applicant had been informed that they were at the maximum development area allowed for this lot. MYTION SEWIIDED AND CARRIED: hbved by ESilnnaan, seconded by Rydell and passed by the following roll call vote to approve a special land use permit for the Lands of Rayden for construction of a new residence having a height in excess of fifteen feet based on the project's conformance with the guidelines for Ordinance #295. AYES: Mayor Dronkert and Council+nexibwrs Allison, Fuhrnh]n and Rydell IDES: CouncilmeMoer van Tenelen b) IANDS OF CHEWS, 11651 Jessica Lane, appeal of Planning Cannission's decision regarding setback determination Council had before then a letter of appeal dated 11/14/85 from Mrs. Cheng requesting a 40' setback from Magdalena and a 30' setback frau Jessica Lane. Mrs. Cheng's letter also noted that they wanted to enclose their deck and replace their roof which was leaking. The Planning Commission, at their 11/13/85 meeting, had determined that the owner's choice of a 40' setback from Magdalena would be injurious to the public interest, O=assioner Carico cartmnted on the historical approach to setback determinations. It had been the intent that the 40' setback would be from the front of the property; Where the driveway connected to the street (access to the property) there would be a 40' setback. In this particular case before Council, Commissioner Carico noted that the other property owners on Jessica were observing the 40' setback off of Jessica. Mrs. Carico stressed the importance of consistency in these decisions. van Tamelen cmmented that setback decisions were made at Site Developmnt and the applicant could then appeal their decision to the full Planning Caimission if they wished. Both Rydell and van Tamelen suggested it would be more appropriate for the Chengs to apply for a variance. Mr. Marc Kaufman, 14100 Donelson Place, mmmnted on the possibility of a procedural prob en. The setback aeeEern trop was not a hard and fast rule and were not uniformly designed throughout the Tuan. Mrs. Mary Stutz, 25310 Elena, found it difficult to understand the request to change a setba ter a e ilt on the property. Mrs. Cheng, applicant, stated that she felt the Planning Cavoission had not been consistent rnetrrecent decisions regarding setbacks. In ackdi.tion, she did not feel that her request was injurious to the public interest. The City AttOmey 031miente3 that if the ordinance currently in place did not reflect the policy of the Tann it should be changed. He also noted that in the future setbacks could be determined at the time of subdivision. In the particular case before Council, the setback determination is still undetermined, the house presently conforms on both Jessica and Magdalena and the Council needs to determine that the Planning Cannission's findings of injurious to the public interest are adequate. -4-