Agenda - Council - 10/10/1978 - Continuation of the 09/25/78 CC Mtg.

Home

CASE 2: CASE $: b) reqtJS, red through Ills property. He states that he now had too many easements on his property and does not want this easement as it will affect the valuation of his property. Further he states he is not a part of the public improve- ment. Enclosure (Dl-b) is a letter from citizens residing in the area where the above proposed improvement is scheduled. The Fitzpatrick's did sign the letter but do not live in the proposed improvement area but are affected by it with the drainage easement. Council Action: Council will have to decide whether to proceed with the improvement or cancel the project. TRAPROCK CO~.~DNS PLAT REGARDING ~THE PERMITTING OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN COVENANTS; CASE OF DELANO SKEIM DEVELOPER: Problem: Mr. Skeim, the developer for the above plat, states that he had {he Planning Commissions approval on the restrictive covenants for the subject plat which permitted the building of an accessory building of a minimum square footage of 320 square feet or larger but had to be constructed simultaneously with the dwelling on the lot. Now, the public hearing notes the discussion of the restrictive covenant for Traprock Commons. However, the Planning Commission resolution makes no reference to the restrict- ive covenants. The Council in their action on final plat approval did not address the covenants and Council states they didn't even know it existed. Consequently, xenen the above issue came up in regards to adcessory buildings and the moritorium on the building of them, Council' referred the matter to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Background Information: I'm enclosing the following enclosures-~ for your review of the problem. a) Enclosure (Dl-c) Planning and Zoning minutes of Public Hear, ing dated May 1, 1978 b) Enclosure (Dl-d) City Council minutes dated June 26, 1978 c) Enclosure (Dl-e) copy of restrictive covenants which was prepared in September, 1978. Action: Plarming Commission review the above, problem and back- ground information and took the following action: They recom-. mended that Mr. Skeimbe allowed to continue his plan for access- ory buildings to be a minimum 320 square feet, maximum not to exceed 1% of the size of the lot. Please refer to enclosure (B-2) this agenda. REZONING FROM R-1 TO B-1 IN THE TRANSITIONAL AREA REGARDING PRO- POSED DENTAL CLINIC REQUEST FOR; CASE OF DR. ANDERSON: Problem: Council received the'Planning Commissions recommendations on the above subject request as required by 170.019 Zoning and Subdivision Code. However, the Council at their meeting of