05/14/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,""""""- " Dick Unruh, Moreland, Unruh & Smith, Architects, noted that the Council had before them answers to Mr. Dooley's appeal. He referred .... to the untimeliness of the appeal, saying that Mr. Dooley could have ~ appealed the PUD at the diagrammatic phase of the PUD. He noted that entering traffic was not a problem, nor was daytime traffic. He felt that Mr. Dooley's planned road was unworkable. He differed with Mr. Dooley.s findings concerning headlights, saying that low beam lights do not reach Mr. Dooley's home. Mr. Dooley felt that he was asking for a minor change. He disagreed with the unworkable aspect of the suggested road change. He, again, disagreed that lights would not reach his home. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Mr. Obie asked about putting a sign asking that lights be lowered. Mr. Saul replied that it was not in the Council's interest to set that kind of condition which would be very difficult to enforce through the years as it would be on private property. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to deny the appeal. Motion carried, all Council members voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. F. Appeal of Planning Commission Action Re: Code Violation Regarding Austin B. Petersen, dba Austin 1-Sto Plumbin Located at 2228 Olive Street CV 79-1 Map Distributed --Manager noted this Zoning Code violation related to the storage of commercial materials and parking of commercial vehicles at a residence. The matter was brought before ~ the Planning Commissfon on two occasions: One when the Petersens were .. unable to attend; the second on March 6, 1979, when the Planning Commission ruled that there was a violation after testimony from the neighborhood. The Planning Commission ordered the storage terminated at this location. The violator could then appeal, followed up by a statement of appeal, stating the reasons. This statement of reasons for appeal has not been received by the City. It is within the authority of the Council to dismiss the appeal. Mr. Saul asked that the Council, as a preliminary matter, decide if it wished to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the requirements of the City Code for conduct of an appeal had not been met. Mr. Long stated that, in the past, the position of the Council has been that it will not hear an appeal when the requirements of the Code have not been complied with, and the omissions are serious. The applicant was twice told, once by letter and once in person, that they must file a statement setting forth their reasons for the appeal. The Council may dismiss this appeal. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to dismiss the appeal. The motion carried unanimously. 5/14/79--6~ 2&1