CC 02-24-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minu~es of Regular Council Mee~ing, February 24, 1986 Page 3 Killer repor~ed ~ha~ the proposed resubdivision will resul~ in two lo~s which mee~ or exceed ~he dimensional R-l requirements, wi~hout variance; reported ~hat ~he Planning Commission recommends approval condi~ioned on ~he following I a. Submission of adminis~ra~ive ~he Coun~y. b. Consolida~ion of Parcel A and ~he adjacen~ lo~ to be accomplished simul~aneously wi~h ~he lo~ split. a revised review by Regis~ered Land Survey for the City before recording with . c. Es~ablishmen~ of a covenan~ requiring ~he principal structure on Lo~ 2 ~o fron~ on Fores~ Lane. Killer lot be Lane. no~ed tha~ restric~ed it is ~he applican~'s desire ~ha~ ~he crea~ed ~o front on Fores~ Lene, ra~her than on Skiles Kr. Scholen explained ~hat ~here is a na~ural drainage swale crossing ~he sou~h por~ion of ~he lo~; for reasons of drainage, he feels access to ~he house should be from Forest Lane; said he is no~ concerned whe~her ~he house fron~s on Fores~ Lane or Skiles Lane. Killer no~ed ~ha~ ~his can be accomplished by ~he applican~ by a~taching the appropria~e covenan~s ~o ~he 10~1 no~ed i~ is no~ recommended by ~he Planning Commission as a City res~riction. Hicks moved, seconded subdivision as ou~lined subject to ~he conditions Motion carried unanimously. by Sa~her, on Planning recommended (4-0) ~ha~ Counoil approve ~he memo (1/30/86) Attachment B, by the Planning Commission. Case No. 86-4. Lo~ Salit and Lo~ Death Variance. 1370 Skiles Lane. H. B. and B. H. Klem Council was referred ~o ~ransparency of ~he subjec~ lot and ~he surrounding neighborhood. Killer explained that the applican~s own 1-1/2 lots which ~hey propose ~o divide ~o create a buildable lo~ fronting on Glenarden Road. Killer no~ed tha~ bo~h lots, as propo.ed, are 120' x 130', which exceeds minimum dimensions; no~ed ~ha~ the lo~ fron~ing on Glenarden Road will require a 10' dep~h variance (130' dep~h required). Killer reviewed how a house on the proposed lot will relate ~o ~he o~her lo~s in the area and ~he exis~ing .e~backsl no~ed ~hat setbacks vary from 40' (required) ~o 60'; explained ~hat by ordinance, the prevailing setback shall prevail, bu~ not ~o exceed 60'. Killer noted ~ha~ where se~backs vary, i~ is logical ~o de~ermine an -average plane-, which would be abou~ 50' (drawing a line be~ween ~he houses on ei~her side of ~his lo~). -'- . Miller no~ed ~ha~ ~here is a na~ural drainage swale along ~he sou~h proper~y line which should be preserved (no filling or obs~ructions); noted e 25' easemen~ would accomplish this, if ~he lo~ is approved. Killer repor~ed ~ha~ the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals recommend approval of ~he 10' dep~h variance I noted Board of Appeals approved pending neighborhood input. Hicks moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council approve ~he lo~ spli~ and ~he 10' lo~ dep~h variance, subjec~ ~Ol a. Es~ablishment of a 25-foot wide drainage easemen~ along ~he sou~h lo~ line. No s~ruc~ures, fill, or o~her obs~ruc~ions shall be placed wi~hin ~hat easement without specific approval of the City. b. Provision of a 50-foot minimum front setback for the proposed house on Parcel B.