01-16-1990 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE «1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Brown asked what the pluses and minuses are of easement versus outlet. Gaffron replied that for a subdivision, the code requires that when you are serving 3 or more lots, there must be au out lot, not an easement. Gaffron said that the question here is whether we are serving 2 lots or more than 2. Gaffron said at some point it will be likely that there will be 3 or more. Gaffron questioned whether this is classified as a subdivision, or a lot line rearrangement? He said that because it is a plat, it fits the definition of a subdivision, but in reality, all it does is chaiigc the lot line between 2 properties. Brown said that an outlot should not be required. Gaffron said th:»t the City would take underlying utility and road easements for an f;utlot. Gaffron said that another question to consider is whether the out lot/easement continuing to the north should be subjer t to a City casement or should it stay as a private driveway without an easement, or should it be a separate outlot? Kelley suggested taking that question one step further and asked what would happen if Mr. Parten subdivides Lot 1 into 2 lots. Kelley said Mr. Parten will have to submit an application for a subdivision and. the outlot question will have to be raised at that time. Kelley said if Reiersgord comes in for a building permit to build a house, he will probably need a variance. Kelley said that due to the existing 60' easement, Reiersgord might get the area variance without anything else to do with the Parten property and have a sufficient access to that property. Mabusth asked the Planning Comitiission how they would feel about that. She said that issue of a private/public road is always raised by the Planning Commission. Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that there is no difference between easements for access purposes or out lots - the areas of each are excluded from the dry buildable area. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the lot line rearrangement with the modification that Outlot A be 50' in width to the eastern property line, and Outlot A (extending north) be at a width of 20'. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission wished to keep Outlot A a single outlot or split it into two. Brown asked what the advantage of having two outlets would be. Gaffron said that from a legal description standpoint, if a homeowners' association is to take care of Outlot A, what does that mean? Kelley said that there should bo two out lots and Outlot A should extend to east property line and the northern extension could remain a driveway, designated as Outlot B. Kelley further recommended approval of a 15' drainage