Laserfiche WebLink
HiaUTBS OP THB PIARHING COMMISSIOM MBBTIliG HELD JANUARY 20, 1987 <br />tlOSO HOLLANDER CONTINUED <br />a) Regarding road easement and maintenance <br />covenants- Applicant's attorney submitted a document <br />that was filed in the chain of title of Outlot h, <br />however, this document contained no signature and <br />therefore its validity has been questioned by staff. <br />A preliminary opinion by the Examiner of Titles <br />indicates that since the document was accepted for <br />filing in 1979, it is valid for those properties <br />where at least one transfer of title has occurred <br />without challenge to the document. In the Case of <br />Outlot B, the indication is that the document may <br />potentially be challenged and declared invalid, <br />since no transfer of title has occurred. If that <br />happened, the two lots proposed to be created from <br />Outlot B would not be subject to the private road <br />convenants and maintenance. Staff recommends that <br />the property owners be required to properly file a <br />new road easement/maintenance document. <br />Attorney Rurik stated that they will do what is <br />required. <br />h r ■' <br />; y <br />.. /I- <br />:4i Ov- <br />b) Septic testing for secondary drainfield sites on <br />both lots has been submitted and is found to be <br />acceptable. <br />c) Regarding the existing garage that was to be <br />removed as part of the original Holly Acres <br />subdivision, applicant's attorney stated in his <br />letter of 1/7/87 that the estate agrees to remove <br />the garage. Regarding location of a new detached <br />garage, staff contends that this is a "through lot" <br />and construction of a new detached garage should <br />require a conditional use permit. <br />Attorney Rurik contends that these are not "through <br />lots" because the lots are between a public and <br />private street, not between two public streets. If <br />the City does not interpret the ordinance as he has <br />explained, then Lot 2 must be considered a "corner <br />lot". <br />Based on staff's interpretation for Lot 1, it is <br />recommended that a condition be set that any <br />accessory structure must maintain 50' setback from <br />rear yard (County 6). <br />Attorney Rurik agreed to this condition, and noted <br />the estate does agree to removal of the existing <br />garage on Lot 2.