Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTBS OF TBS PLMlNIliG COMM.T MBBTING HAY 15# 1989 <br />SOHIH6 PILE «1405-COLWBLL CONTINljiD <br />Planning Comnticoioner Hanson suggested that the applicant <br />have his developer prepare a site plan depicting the various <br />directions >:uggested by the Planning Cominlssion and Staff. <br />Planning Commissioner Erown asked Mr. Colwell for his <br />opinion regarding only one access off of County Road 51. Mr. <br />Colwell said that he would rather have the access off of County <br />Road 84. He said that portion of land would lend itself well for <br />an access. Planning Commissioner Bellows Indicated that as a <br />general rule she would prefer to avoid accessing off of County <br />Road 84. However, due to the topography of this property, she <br />would not object. Planning Commissioner Moos said that she was <br />not in favor of curb cuts, but did no: see any other options <br />available. Planning Commissioners Hanson and Cohen concurred <br />with Bellows. Chairman Kelley summarized for the applicant that <br />the Planning Commission would agree to an access off of County <br />Roads 84 and 51. The Planning Commission would like to see an <br />outlot placed across Lot 3 to serve Lot 2, and obtain enough dry, <br />buildable land on the east side of the outlot to make a building <br />lot. <br />Chairman Kelley asked about the >»ide setbacks for the <br />principal structure. Mabusth replied :nat it is 25' from the <br />proposed lot line and that the code requires a 30' side setback. <br />Mr. Colwell was asked to define the use of the accessory <br />structure as the structure as proposed presented a problem for <br />the City. The accessory structure has been placed on a lot that <br />ooes not contain a principal residence. Mr. Colwell said that <br />the structure was mainly used for storage and that he would <br />prefer to have it located on Lot 1. It was the general concensus <br />of the Planning Commission that the principal structure meet the <br />required setbacks, especially due to the new subdivision. <br />Planning Commissioner Brown suggested that the lot line be <br />rearranged to allow for the setbacks. Kelley said that Mr. <br />Colwell could opt to rearrange the lot line, move the barn or <br />tear it down. Mabusth noted that a condition would be placed on <br />subdivision approval requiring the applicant to apply for a <br />building permit for Lot 1 within one year, or the accessory <br />structure must be removed. Bellows suggested that the accessory <br />structure be required to meet the uteiidards set forth in the <br />ordinance amendment rather than the standards indicated within <br />the present ordinance. Mr. Colwell asked how far from the Lot 2 <br />lot line the accessory structure would need to be? Mabusth <br />replied that it would need to be 10' from the lot line. Mrs. <br />Colwell asked what the setback requirement would be for the barn <br />to remain in Lot 1. Mabusth replied that it would have to be <br />10' from that lot line as well. Bellows questioned why the lot <br />line could not be moved so that the house had its proper setback <br />and the barn/garage could remain within its required 10'. <br />Mabusth stated that the house would have to be 30' from the east <br />side lot line. Kelley observed that by moving the lot line 5' to <br />the east, the barn and the house would meet their required <br />setbacks. Mabusth advised that there is adequate separation to <br />satisfy setbacks, the question is the accessory structure and