10/05/93 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Complete Pending Complete Complete 9/7/93 9/7/93 9/7/93 9/7/93 Monthly Status Report With regard to the terms of the CUP for Curtiss Titterud: The P&Z Commission approved 1 and 4 thru 11, and directed Staff to amend the following: (2) "That said Permit shall remain in effect so long as the conditions imposed herein are complied with and the Permit Holder retains ownership of the Subject Property." (3) Delete this altogether and renumber 4 thru tl. The P&Z Commission voted to recommend that City Council approve Curtiss Titterud's request for a CUP for an accessory apartment at 6865 162nd Lane N.W. Forward to City Council. Also, it was the consensus of the Commission that the City should establish some guidelines to keep track of accessory apartments in the City. It was the consensus of the Commission that the City should establish some guidelines to keep track of accessory apartments in the City. Regarding arterial thoroughfare setbacks: The P&Z Commission voted to direct Staff to draft a change, as discussed, revising the setback distance for structures from the centerline of MSA, County Roads and arterial street right-of-ways to 83 feet, making note that this setback does not supersede any other setbacks that might exist. The Commission also instructed you to schedule a public hearing regarding mending the City Code in this matter. Findings of Fact - Lynn Mortenson's request for a variance from minimum street frontage requirements: The Board of Adjustment approved 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9, and directed Staff to amend the following: (2) "That the subject property identified as PIN 14-32-25-13.0003 is zoned R-1 Rural Residential and is . . ." Add (2A) "That the subject property is part of an area of approximately 115 acres under single ownership of the applicant." (6)"... T.H. #47 meets the minimum lot width requirement but access to the proposed building site is obstructed by a county ditch..." Add (6A) "There are many building sites suitable on this parcel that do not require access across a county ditch." Delete (7) and replace it with the following "That a representative of the applicant stated at the public hearing that the need for the variance was economic in nature because of the cost of extending and improving Osmium Street in order to provide the minimum legal frontage on a public road." Add (8A) "If Osmium Street was improved and a cul-de.sac constructed, no variance would be required." (10) "That such variance is necessary for the preservation..." (1 I) "That if granted, the variance will not grant the Applicant special..." (12) "That if granted, the variance will not be materially detrimental . . ." (13) "That if granted, the variance will not substantially increase the congestion of public streets .... "Add (14) "That the subject property as described by the PIN or by the parcel under contiguous ownership was under great dispute by the Board." Execute findings. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I