03-02-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 3 CASE #88-04 (Cont'd) Chairman Curtis requested the Planner review the surface • drainage problems; questioned if there was potential for the County to refuse sale due to drainage issue. Bergly described the natural drainage pattern; he stated a problem could occur if the lot were split, as a drainage easement would have to be provided across one of the lots. Curtis expressed concern regarding the encroachment. Elseth suggested the lot split could be approved subject to the resolution of the encroachment. Robinson suggested the encroachment could be resolved by granting an easement for the garage and driveway. There was discussion relative to the rear yard setback, as shown on the survey; Member Probst requested Planner interpretation. Bergly advised that on a curved frontage it is questionable as to where the rear yard occurs. Robinson suggested he could apply for a front setback variance, approximately 15 ft. from the front property line, which would alleviate some of the problems discussed this evening. Planner Bergly stated that the proposed lot is not a lot of record; in the case of a lot of record the Commission would consider variance requests due to land hardships. In this case the Commission would be creating a lot with variances, which is not City policy. Commission members consensus was that they preferred not to create a lot with irregular lot lines and known encroachments; such action could create future legal problems. The Commission agreed that economic issues related to the sale of the property cannot be considered; also, they were of the opinion that the request is premature and the applicant should resolve the issues of the encroachment and purchase of right-of-way from the County prior to submitting the lot split, as per the Planner's recommendation. Probst moved, seconded by Martin, that Commission table Case #88-04, Lot Split at 1960 West County Road E-2. Motion carried unanimously (6-0) CASE #88-05; VAR. Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 3-2-88; relative to SIDEYARD SETBACK, the application for sideyard setback variance, Lot 8, LOT 8, BLK 2, Block 2, McClung's Third Addition, Kevin Bailey. McCLUNG'S 3RD ADDN, KEVIN BAILEY Bergly explained the request is for a two or three foot side yard variance for a residence to be constructed on a pie-shaped, cul-de-sac lot. The Planner noted the shallow lot depth of 123 feet and the required 30-foot rear . yard setback significantly restricts the building envelope. Also, he noted the Zoning Code requires the lot depth in an R-1 District to be 130 feet; Bergly was unsure as to how the 123 ft. depth occurred. He pointed out the pedestrian walkways along both the north side yard line and the rear lot line provide open space that visually appears as part of the lot and provides for additional separation between the homes.