Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PJanninl! Commission Recommendatiou <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of Planning Case #01-26, a <br />request for a minor subdivision and lot width variance for the reasons outlined in the staff <br />recommendation above. <br /> <br />Update <br /> <br />The Council considered this item at their September 24, 2001 meeting. At that time, it was <br />determined that additional information was needed to more thoroughly evaluate the request. <br />Additional items requested included the following: <br /> <br />1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />An excerpt of the September 5, 2001 Planning Commission minutes and letters introduced at <br />the Public Hearing have been included as Attachment A. <br /> <br />2. Additional location and existing land use information for adjacent parcels <br /> <br />A map highlighting the location of the proposed minor subdivision is attached for your <br />review. The proposed minor subdivision has also been included for your review. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />At the Council meeting, there was also concern that this minor subdivision would potentially <br />land lock an adjacent property. However, there is no vacant land adjacent to the proposed <br />minor subdivision. Rather, all of the adjacent parcels are improved with single family <br />structures. <br /> <br />3. Existing Utilities Stubbed to the Site <br /> <br />At the meeting, the applicant indicated that utilities had previously been stubbed to the site in <br />the 1970's. He further indicated that the previous property owner, his father, had paid an <br />assessment for this purpose. At this point, given the move and past record keeping practices, <br />I was unable to find any documentation. <br /> <br />Ifthe Council was inclined to approve the proposed minor subdivision, I would suggest the creation <br />of two 90 foot wide lots as opposed to the 98 and 82 foot wide lots currently being contemplated. <br />Two 90 foot wide lots would require the removal of the existing walk out patio. This would also <br />make the side yard setback 5 feet. The R-l Zoning District requires a minimum oflO feet making <br />the current lot non-conforming. However, this would seem to be better than creating an 82 foot wide <br />lot. Please feel free to contact me if there is additional information that would be helpful in <br />evaluating the request. <br /> <br />e <br />