CCP 01-11-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pla1'nh", o--n; "Sian Meetioo 6 1-06-93 . Cl\SE #92-23 (Continued) . winiecki moved, seconded by McGraw to recommend to Council approval of Case #92-23; Minor SUbdivision/lot Consolidation at 1585 Johanna Boulevard with the four can:litions as outlined in Planner's report of 1-6-93 an:i the one additional can:lition requirin;J a Wil~ =venant on Tract B allowin;J one sin;Jle family dwellin;J, Motion carried unanilrously. (7-0) Cl\SE #92-24: 1m <XlNSOI.~Cti - 1567 OM: AVENUE. IlMl 1\SHBllCH Planner Bergly referred to his report dated January 6, 1993 an:i explained the applicant's property =ently exmtains 2 separate parcels, the larger parcel containing the house is 1.7 a=esi the smaller parcel containing an accessory Wil~ an:i gardens is .25 a=es. 'Ihe proposed consolidation will =eate one parcel with one tax statement, makin;J it possible to have a slight tax reduction due to the lower homestead tax rate applied to both existing parcels. Planner Bergly outlined the following considerations: 1. 'Ihe existin;J house is only I to 2 feet fram the lot line separatin;J the existin;J parcels an:i will be brought into setback confonnity by the consolidation. 2. The existin;J accessory structure on the smaller parcel is nearly on the west line of the parcel, so it will continue as a legally . existin;J non-confo:nnin3' b.lildin; locations (a 10 foot side yard is required) . 3. The new lot will have 199 ft. of frontage on Oak Avenue an:i will be over 500 ft. in depth. . Planner Bergly recommerx:ls to approve Case #92-24, consolidation of a large parcel an:i a small parcel. The city Attorney should review and approve the documents prior to filin;J with the County. Applicant, Dan Ashbach stated that this request is based on a covenant required by the City in previous variance action. 'Ihe covenant required that the lots be combined (as proposed now) prior to sellin;J the residence. Petersen moved, secoooed by piotrowski to recommend to Council approval of Case #92-24; lot Consolidation along with the approval of all documents by the City Attorney prior to filin;J with the County. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) ClISE #87-26: EDGEWATER ESTATES 2ND ADDITICti BERM. PAUL KELEHER Planner Bergly referred to his report of January 6, 1993 and explained in late 1987 or early 1988 the General Development Plan f= the Townhomes was approved. Plans that were approved included a grading and drainage plan. 'Ihe benn between parkshore Drive and the SE group of 4 . units was not constructed as shown on the approved gradin;J plan. The =oss sections have an elevation difference of 12 feet at the east b.iil~ line to 5.5 feet on the west b.lildin;J line. 'lhe city has the authority to require that the grading be adjusted to conform with the