CC Min 1988-10-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 2 (continued) M /S: Claire /Murray to direct staff and the developer to attempt to work together on a compromise that both can live with and return to Council for deliberation and action. The motion failed on a majority voice vote determined to be 3 -4 M /S: Bury /LaBerge to deny the subject appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Buchan, Bury and Vice Mayor LaBerge Noes: Councilmen Claire, Murray, Stangel and Mayor Greenalch M /S: Stangel /Claire to grant the subject appeal and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Claire, Stangel, and Mayor Greenalch Noes: Councilmen Buchan, Bury, Murray and Vice Mayor LaBerge M /S: Murray /Claire to direct staff and the appellants in the subject appeal to get together and attempt to work out a compromise acceptable to both and return to Council with recommendations within two weeks (October 24, 1988), with City Council to retain jurisdiction. The motion carried on a majority voice vote determined to be 5 -2. City Attorney Schricker announced that the recommendation is to be returned to Council by the specific date of October 24, 1988 and no further notice will be given. MINUTE ORDER NO. 88 -153 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3. Public Hearing - Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to approve application of Richard Geyer to subdivide an approximately 17,640 square -foot parcel into two parcels, one of which will not have the required 35 -foot street frontage, 346 West Oakwood Boulevard - Istvan Horvath, 342 W. Oakwood Boulevard, appellant (203 -10) Affidavits of Publication of Notice of Hearing and of Mailing are on file. Planning Commission record transmitted 10/10/88 In response to question, Planning Director Patterson said that previously the Fire Department had believed that a 25 -foot driveway was necessary for equipment use on flag lots, but later it was determined that 20 -feet is adequate, so the requirement was reduced accordingly. Reg.Mtg. 10/10/88 Page 3 MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 Page No. 204