Laserfiche WebLink
MIMOTBS OF THB PIAIINIIIG SSIOH TIH6 SBPTBHBBR 19, 198t <br />ZONING FILB il329>MCNBLLIS CONTINI <br />The applicants were present for this matter. <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron <br />explained that applicants were seeking variances to a front yard <br />setaback and 26* wetland setback. The lot was originally created <br />from the Woodhill Ridge subdivision and accesses through Woodhill <br />Road. Originally the lot was platted with full knowledge of the <br />existing wetland and drainage easement. There is a 50' front <br />setback and 30* side setback and a 26* wetland setback. The <br />applicants may not have been aware of the 26* wetland setback. <br />Kelley inquired as to when the subdivision was completed. <br />Gaffron replied 19G6/1987. Gaffron showed the Planning <br />Commission a topographical view of the area and stated that the <br />property contains a steep slope going down to the wetland area. <br />The space left for the building envelope is approximately 65* in <br />depth and 209'-250* in length. The proposed setbacks for the <br />house would be 37* and 28' where 50' is required. The deck, <br />retaining wall and a corner of the house would all encroach i/ito <br />the wetland area. The applicants are also proposing to place <br />fill east of and at both ends of the retaining wall, which is <br />within the boundaries of the Drainage and Conservation and <br />Flowage Easements. <br />Staff's initial reaction to this was that a linear concept <br />house would be more appropriate for this particular lot. The <br />applicants are proposing an ”L" shaped house. Gaffron questioned <br />whether there was a hardship that would justify granting all of <br />the setback variances. <br />Planning Commission member Johnson inquired as to the length <br />and width of the house, from front to back, top to bottom. <br />Gaffron responded that the proposed length south to north is <br />about 120' with the east-west dimension at the garage area about <br />90'. <br />Mr. McNellis stated that the variances would 'Iffer <br />depending upon the location of the front of the lot. In «ooking <br />at adjacent property, what has been determined as the front of <br />the lot is different from the McNellis property. The proposed <br />McNellis house would face the private road that accesses the old <br />Pillsbury house. There is an adjacent lot which was plotted so <br />that the back of the lot is on the road, which is also where the I <br />utility lines connect to that property. The McNellis lot is an <br />unusual piece of land; it is 3 1/4 acres, but only 11% is <br />suitable for building. <br />Planning Commission member Bellows inquired whether the <br />Carpenter property accessed off of the same private "Pillsbury <br />Road". Gaffron explained that property actually accessed off of <br />Russell, but at one time there was a connection. Chairman Kelley <br />stated that when the suDdivision off of Wcodhill was done, the <br />developers were told to close off that connection.