Laserfiche WebLink
MIHUTBS OP THE PIAMNIHG COMMISSION TING OCTOBER 17, 1988 <br />•J •ZONING FILE 81329-MCNELLIS CONTIN1 <br />travelled road. Mr. McNeills stated it was 73' to the edge of <br />the house, but there is a 36' strip of land owned by Mr. Prudden <br />between his house and the roadway. Mr. Prudden granted an <br />easement for the purpose of putting in the driveway. Kelley <br />asked Mr. McNeil is whether he had asked to purchase that land <br />from Mr. Prudden. Mr. McNellis responded in the affirmative and <br />added that Mr. Prudden was not able to sell the land because he <br />wished to maintain 8 acres. <br />Planning Commission member Johnson commented that he was <br />comfortable with the proposal and looked upon the deck as an <br />overhang rather than an actual structure. Bellows indicated that <br />she would not approve the deck because the applicant knew what <br />the building envelope was at the time they purchased the <br />property. She added that she might be willing to approve the <br />front setback. Hanson concurred. Cohen stated that he was <br />uncomfortable with the entire proposal. He said the area was <br />peculiar from the very beginning. He too thought that the <br />applicant was aware of the problems with the buildability of the <br />lot at the time he purchased the property. Moos concurred with <br />Cohen's opinion. Planning Commission member Brown indicated that <br />due to the unique characteristics of the lot, he would have no <br />problems with the proposal. <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning <br />Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of the front yard <br />setback, and denial of the 4' encroachment into the wetland. <br />Motion, Ayes=2, Nays=5. It was moved by Planning Commission <br />member Johnson, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to <br />recommend approval of the front yard setback and the 4* <br />encroachment into the wetlands. Motion, Ayes=2, Nays=5. It was <br />moved by Planning Commission member Bellows, seconded by Planning <br />Commission member Moos, to recommend denial of both the front <br />yard setback and the 4' encroachment into the wetlands. Motion, <br />Ayes=4, Kelley, Brown and Johnson. Nay, Motion passed. <br />Mr. McNellis stated that the hardship involved with his <br />application had not been discussed. Kelley explained that the <br />application had been thoroughly reviewed and this was the second <br />time this matter had been presented. He felt the Planning <br />Commission was fully aware of the hardships. Mr. McNellis asked <br />for suggestions as to how he could place the house on the <br />property. He said he would have a problem with surface runoff if <br />he were to place the house in another location within the <br />building envelope. Hanson stated that he understood the <br />constraints involved, but thought it would be possible to build <br />within those constraints. Cohen reminded Mr. McNellis about his <br />right to go before the Council and the fact that the Planning <br />Commission was only an advisory body. Bellows added that the <br />motion was necessary so that Mr. McNellis could proceed to the <br />City Council. She also stated that Mr. McNellis had previously <br />been given the suggestion to redesign the house to fit within the