Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 20, 1986 <br />#1085 BROWN CONTINUED <br />Assistant Zoning <br />only question <br />lighting. <br />#1086 CHARLES PEXA <br />1200 LYMAN AVENUE <br />SKETCH PLAN REVIEW <br />SUBDIVISION <br />Administrator Gaf f ron stated that the <br />he had was regarding the proposed <br />Fir. & A1rs. Brown stater that they propose 1 ights on the <br />step posts that would be insta l leci so that lighting is <br />directed downward. In audit ion, they noted that they <br />plan to o,nit the canopied structures that are shown on <br />the drawings. <br />No <br />one <br />was present from the <br />public regarding this matter <br />and <br />the <br />public hearing was <br />closed, <br />It was moved by Goetten, seconded by McDonald, to <br />recommend approval subject to staff recommendation. <br />Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />Charles Pexa was present for this matter. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaf f ron explained tr <br />request to divide off a new building site from the 4.9 <br />dry acres with existing residence. Staff recommended <br />that it be submitted as a sketch plan because the new <br />lot would be divided approximately in half by a private <br />easement roa� that serves the existing house and 5 other <br />properties. The new lot would not have Z contiguous dry <br />acres in either the north or south parcel, as is <br />requ i = Ad by code. It appears that a house cou lc be <br />located to meet the 501 front, 30' side, and 26' wetland <br />setbacks. He noted that a variance must be granter to <br />credit dry acreage on other side or road to lot. He <br />further explained the issue of the private easement road <br />which now serves 6 lots, whereas normally an easement <br />road serves no more than 3 lots, and whether or not a <br />50' road out lot should be created. He reviewed the 3 <br />precedent cases where variances have been granted to <br />allow credit of area on both sides of a private road <br />easement. He also questioned the accuracy of wetland <br />location of a 1.986 survey because of the unusua 1 ly wet <br />year noting a topographic review of the site might <br />reveal different wetland boundaries. <br />Planning Commission felt that additional information was <br />needed regarding the building envelope and drainf ield <br />locations. <br />11 <br />