Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 2 (continued) <br />Dr. Whitney (see above) suggested the long driveway presents hazards to <br />children playing in the neighborhood, that trees might have to be removed <br />if a second house were built and stated he has concerns about the possible <br />lack of interest in street appearance of residents of a rear panhandle <br />lot. <br />Mayor Stangel invited anyone else present who wished to speak to do so. <br />No one wished to speak. <br />M /S: Britschgi /Mosher to close the public hearing. <br />Carried unanimously and public hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. <br />Discussion followed concerning points covered in testimony. <br />M /S: Claire /Britschi to uphold the appeal and reverse the decision of the <br />Zoning Administrator in granting the variance to allow creation of a lot <br />with 16 feet of frontage on a public street where a minimum of 35 feet is <br />required at 2066 Poplar Street because: <br />I. It is not in the best interest of the neighborhood and <br />inconsistent with the dwellings around it. <br />2. It violates the concept of R- 1(Single family residential) District <br />Zoning of one house per lot. <br />3. It would create a safety hazard on the street because of the long <br />driveway. <br />4. There is evidence that two -lot development of the property might <br />have a detrimental effect on the development of the property <br />because of the possible removal of desirable trees. <br />The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. <br />MINUTE ORDER NO. 83 -1 <br />--------------------------------------------- - - - - -- <br />(Council recessed from 8:50 to 9 :00 p.m.) <br />REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS <br />None <br />------------------------------------------ - - - - -- <br />REPORTS OF CITY MANAGER <br />3. Professional services agreement, Downtown <br />Market Analysis (Keyser Marston Associates, <br />Inc.) (702 -02) <br />Report of City Manager and Planning Director 12/22/82 <br />In response to question, City Manager Smith stated that the proposed <br />Downtown Market Analysis is expected to be of benefit to the Redevelopment <br />Agency and would be a proper charge to the Agency, but that the Agency <br />presently has no funds. <br />Reg.Mtg. <br />1/3/83 <br />Page 3 <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 44 <br />Page No. 33 <br />