City Council Minutes 1991 07 16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..:1 Councilman Davidson was indeed closer than the Council had conditioned. One way of explaining this is that there are four lots that remain with the potential for recurrence of the problem, therefore a solution or a correction is mandated to prevent a recurrence of the problem. I purpose several solutions. One that I have already done is discussed this with the people who review the site plans in my department to clarify to them the precise conditions and terms that Council has imposed on the Springs; there was some confusion in my directions. I also have directed them to require the builder in that project to provide information on the actual site relative to Cherry street, how far are each of the foundations away from Cherry street opposed to simply the property line. The third element is to more closely field measure the distance from the foundation as built from Cherry Street to make sure the excavation as proposed conforms to the plan. I do want to state that we do check set backs. The error was due to a miscommunication on my part to my staff. PUD as approved without Council condi tions does specify a minimum set back of the property line of the right- of-way of ten feet; however, the Council conditions imposed on all the lots except for the two lots that were presented were allowed to be closer than 30 feet if they were ranches. We have one ranch that is presently 29.6. This was one of the ranches that was spelled out in the PUD as an exception. We will continue to maintain our vigilance on this proj ect because of the nature of these requests regarding precise set backs from the builders. Davidson: The total numbers that are going to be set back less than 30 feet are going to be the two ranches plus the additional two-story that has already been built? 18