Laserfiche WebLink
der 25,x.: ~~19, ? <br />~r, ~~-~ ~~/~7 7 <br />,~ ~ , <br />.~ J <br />,''~ <br />r NC-24 <br />,~~' The City. Attorney stated the hearing: was Clinch-on- <br />groperly called' Corners , <br />The City Planner reviewed the administrative <br />report and Planning Commission recommendations. <br />-The City Planner informed the Council that the <br />applicant had indicated he was not able to attend Continue to <br />..:the meeting. y~ Nov.. 9, g15 <br />Motion, by Werdouschegg, seconded by Hardt to <br />continue public hearing on NC-24 to <br />November 9 at 8:15.: <br />5-ayes - 0 nayes- carried <br />The City Attorney .stated the hearing-was <br />.properly called. PL-111 <br />The City Planner reviewed his report. and the <br />Planning Commission recommendations. g.'46 to <br />Councilman Werdouschegg asked the City Planner what the 10:24 <br />Planning Commission`reasoningwas,for recommending <br />that Lot 5 be developed so that.thehome faced. <br />7th Street. <br />The Planner responded that the Planning Commission was <br />concerned for the number of accesses onto Old Highway 8 <br />and felt .that it was-necessary to maintain a clear view <br />_area at the intersection of 7th .Street .and 5th Avenue. <br />Councilman Werdouschegg asked if it were possible to <br />square off the rear property,lirie for lots l and 2. <br />The'Planner replied that the. property. line could be <br />.redrawn but thaw given the shape of the parcel at least one <br />of the lots would have a slight protrusion creating somewhat <br />unusual property lines. <br />Jim Cepress, applicant, was.. present to answer questions. <br />.Eugene LaRue, property owner to the north, stated that while <br />,he did not object aothis property being developed, <br />he felt'the 57 foot ,lots along 5th Avenue were not _ <br />compatible with the size lots in the area and felt that <br />the 40 foot lot adjacent to 6th Avenue was considerably <br />too'small to be built on. <br />`;:.~ <br />