10-03-1988 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTB8 OP THB PLA8MIHG COKMISSIOH TING OCTOBER 3, 1988 ZOHIVG PILE «1310-BISIE6BR COHTIH1 well as the school bus schedules and routes and rush hour. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1328 HOWARD B. JOHNSON 1635 6 1675 CONCORDIA STREET _ _ SUBDIVISION OP A LOT LINE RBARR?3IGBMEHT->CLASS I SECOND REVIEW The applicant was present, as was the new owner of 1635 Concordia Street, Mr. David Eiss. Chairman Kelley read a letter that had been sent by Mr. Thomas Kelly, an Attorney for Mrs. Trainor. The letter indicated that Mrs. Trainor supported the proposed subdivision applied for by Mr. Johnson. Kelley stated that the main issue now involved with this application was whether the side setback would be 5* or Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reiterated Mr. Kelley's statement regarding a 5' or 10* setback. He reminded the Planning Commission that the current zoning for this property was LR-IC, half acre district, and that the standard side setback was 10'. The 5' that the applicant is proposing improves the current situation. Kelley surmised that this lot line rearrangement was necessary for Mr. Eiss to obtain title insurance. Planning Commission member Hanson inquired as to how much acreage was available. Gaffron responded that Tract A was approximately 170,500 s.f., which would be approximately 4 acres. Mr. Eiss stated that he did not understand how the City could "reward" Mrs. Trainor for encroaching on Mr. Johnson's property by giving her an additional 5*. CounciImember Johnson stated that the City was not giving a reward, it was merely trying to conform to the City's standards. The applicant asked why Mrs. Trainor could not be asked to give up 10' of her house. Hanson replied that the Planning Commission tried to look upon all applications with common sense. Mr. Johnson stated that he was trying to be neighborly by giving Mrs. Trainor 5', but she was to pay for the survey and attorney's fees. Mrs. Trainor has not paid these fees and Mr. Johnson suggested that she therefore, pay for the additional 5' of land. Hanson stated that those issues were beyond the control of the Planning Commission. Kelley informed Mr. Johnson that going to Court would be another recourse. Planning Commission member Hanson stated thac he would like to see the 10* setback standard upheld. Mr. Johnson asked what effect the 10* requirement would have should Mr. Eiss want to subdivide that lot. Hanson stated that he could not address that issue without further information being provided. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that someone applied to the City to have this matter heard by the Planning Commission. He