09-18-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2060 September 13, 1995 Page 2 The 1994 application was made jointly by the Feyos and the Etheringtons who intended to purchase the property from the Feyos. That sale ultimately did not proceed, and the variance expired September 12th. The site plan and grading plan submitted in 1994 was reviewed by the City Engineer who concluded that the site development as proposed was acceptable from an engineering standpoint subject to installation of gutters and downspouts on the proposed residence, which would connect to a drain pipe extending north to the edge of the existing roadway ditch. This would prevent an increase in runoff to the adjacent lots. He also noted the driveway would be somewhat steep but acceptable, and prior to construction of a new residence on the property, a full grading plan needs to be submitted and approved. Lot Boundary Dispute Planning Commission may recall that the westerly neighbors to this site, the Laues, had Questioned the location of the west lot boundary. The DeMars-Gabriel survey submitted by Feyo showed Laues’ metal shed encroaching on Feyo’s parcel. Laues’ surveyor has confirmed that the shed is encroaching the lot line. The Laues and the Feyos have both engaged attorneys to represent them. Laues apparently intend to begin a torrens action, claiming adverse possession. Feyo’s attorney indicates he feels the essential elements for a successful adverse possession claim are lacking. The Feyos have constructed a cyclone fence along both side lot lines. As of this writing, staff is unaware whether the Laues have in fact filed a torrens action. It is staffs impression that the adverse possession claim is unlikely to succbed and the lot boundaries and area are as presented. In the worst case, however, if Feyos were to lose 15’ along their entire west lot line by adverse possession, the lot width would be reduced below the 80% standard and lot area and building envelope would shrink somewhat. Staff Recommendation It is staffs recommendation to proceed with the variance renewal request in the normal manner unless or until a torrens action is commenced which would leave the lot area and width parameters undefined until the torrens action is complete. In that case, staff would recommend holding final action in abeyance until the torrens action is complete. Planning Commission should review the variance renewal request and determine whether the findings, conclusions and conditions of Resolution #3462 are still pertinent. If so, a recommendation for approval of the variance renewal is appropriate per those conditions.