Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 20, 1977 Planning Commission Minutes December 20 , 1977 7 :30 P.M. . . ' The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Banks . Roll call found the following Comm,issioners . present : Emery, Halley (arrived at 7 :40 P.M. ) , Hillyer, Loveland, Mann, McManana, Messmer and Banks. -Absent being , Commissioner Waldron . Also present were City Adm. Dave Kucera, Secretary Janice Corbett, Assistant Bldg.;. Inspector . John Allen and several interested - citizens . - The minutes of .December 6, 1977. were present ed . for approval. Motion was made by . McManama,. seconded.;by Loveland to approve the minutes as presented. All in favor, motion carried. Unfinished Business A . Continuation of variance ublic hearin located at 543 Hopkins ,Road, ..T 3500 ,: .3 -2 - 1BD,., pelican ., Mr. Mic eel, Byx e - Mr. Doug Hansen, Agent, was recognized and presented a copy of a survey,. prepared , by , Hoffbuhr-Sur-veying .-tha.t . was , requested by the Commission at their December 6th meeting depicting the true property lines. Short discussion was held. The Fasano Findings were read .and.answered. .:.(Refer .to attached findings ) . Motion was. made by Mann, seconded by McManame to approve .th3 , variance based on the Fasano, Findings, :approve -the extended depth of the lot and grant the minor partition at the same time. including the..staff .report .of .December..-6th. Roll call . vote : Emery, yes ; Halley, yes ; Hillyer, -.yes; .Loveland, . yes ; Mann, yes ; McManama, yes ; 'Messmer, yes ; Banks, yes . All in favor,. , motion carried.. .. , New Business A . . Minor partition located .at .715 Hopkins Road, TL 1200, 37-2W-11A , Applicant, Tony ,and Anita Coy Mrs. Anita Coy was recognized and came forth. A copy of the proposed partition was presented to the Commission for their review. Chairman Banks asked Mrs . Coy what size easement she had in mind and if they were ready to deed that property now so it wouldn ' t be a landlocked piece of property. Chairman Banks asked Adm. Kucera how much of an easement would have to be deeded behind their home. Adm. Kucera stated that this would have to be a decision of the Planning Commission but should be based on the intended use of the landlocked piece of property. It was noted that this piece of property is an existing flag lot. If the partition was granted an illegal lot would be created because the length is over 2-1/2 times the width of the lot. A discussion was held regarding the width of ' the necessary street. The Commission felt they could not determine the width of the necessary street without knowing the intended use of the property. Commissioner Halley stated that the Commission ' s only decision in this matter would be to deny December 20, 1977 a this request for a minor partition. Motion was made by Halley, seconded by Messmer to deny the minor partition at this time. Roll call vote : Emery, yes ; Halley, yes ; Hillyer, yes ; Loveland, yes ; Mann, yes ; McManama, yes ; Messmer, yes ; Banks, yes. All in favor, motion carried. B . Ron Youn ' s final late resentation for Green Glen Subdivision , Unit 1 located on Scenic Avenue Ron Young was recognized, came forth, and presented the final plat to the Commission . Mr. Young said that one problem which should be brought to the Commission ' s attention relates to a surveying error. This error was made many years ago along - Scenic Avenue having to do with a quarter corner and a lot of legal descriptions are written off this quarter corner. ' Mr. Young stated that he has the Scenic Village Subdivision plat filed by Mr. Hoffbuhr that indicates there is a discrepancy in the legal descriptions in .the east—west area of 16. 86 feet and in the north—south area of 16. 50 feet. This discrepancy has continued along Scenic Avenue to his property and the end result has been that they do not have as much property as they thought. There is a 16 foot discrepancy in the north—south . direction. Three (3) substandard lots have been created due to the surveying error making two lots approximately 7400 square feet instead -of -the required 8000 square feet and one lot approximately 6900 square feet. Mr. Young stated that since the improvements were in at the time the error was discovered, the only thing they could do was to alter the dimensions to -fit what was in the field which meant the property line is behind the curb. Mr. Young said that there are some variations in the final plat from the preliminary plat approved by the Commission. Adm. Kucera said he sees no problems with signing the plat but will hold off signing the plat until the Council has discussed the street issue at their next meeting. Motion was made by Emery, seconded by Loveland to have the Chairman and Secretary of the Planning Commission sign the final plat at the same time the Mayor, City Engineer and City Recorder sign the plat. Roll call vote : Emery, yes ; Halley, yes ; Hillyer, yes ; Loveland, yes ; Mann, yes; McManama, yes; Messmer, yes; Banks, yes. All in favor, motion carried. C . Jack Hoffbuhr ' s final plat presentation for Flagstone Subdivision located on Taylor Road Jack Hoffbuhr was recognized, came forth, and presented the final plat to the Commission. City Adm. Kucera said that to the extent of his review of this subdivision, he sees no differences between the final plat and the approved preliminary plat. Motion was made by McManama, seconded by Emery to have the Chairman and Secretary of the Planning Commission sign the final plat at the same time ' the Mayor, City Engineer and City Recorder sign the plat. Roll call vote: Emery, yes ; Halley, yes ; Hillyer, yes ; Loveland, yes ; Mann, yes ; McManama, yes ; Messmer, yes ; Banks, yes. All in favor, motion carried. Motion was made by McManama, seconded by Mann to adjourn . Meeting adjourned at 8 : 30 P.M. December 20, 1977 FASANO FINDINGS — Applicant : Mr. Michael Byxbe, ' Variance : Lot Wi.dth 'Requirements from 60 ' to 51'' 1. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying ' to ' the 'land, building or use 'referred to in -the application, which circumstances ' or 'oonditions do -not apply generally to land, buildings or uses in the same district? The flood plain will have to built up on one side of the lot. 2. Is the granting of the application necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment - of ' sub'stantial property 'rights -bf the'"" petitioner? .. , Yes . -(1) By granting the variance, the' property would coincide with other property -'in -that" area. " (2) The granting 'of' this 'variance' wowld b'e' best utilization of the -land. 3. Would the granting' under 'the circumstances be outweighed. , by the adverse effects to 'the' health or' saf.ety'"of persons residing or working in the neighborhood' of the property of the applicant, or be materially 'detrimental 'to 'the public welfare 'or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood? "'X' `No 1. Would coincide with the property in 'the area 2 . - Would create more -uniform' building 'in' the area: ''