Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 <br />ZONING FILE #1329-MCNELLIS CONTI2NUED <br />Mr. McNellis explained the topography of the lot to the <br />road; the property slopes and then levels out. This level spot <br />would be the natural building location. The property then slopes <br />again to the drainage easement and where it goes back up, there <br />is another level spot where the septic system for the proposed <br />house would be located. Mr. McNellis stated that Mr. Dickey was <br />asked to design a house that would not only accomodate their <br />living needs, but that would also adhere to the irregular shape <br />of the lot. He was especially concerned about preserv4ng the <br />mature trees on the property. The proposed home should bend in <br />with the lot and should not create much disturbance of the <br />surrounding area. Because of the private road that comes into the <br />lot, there is no parking area. As the road comes up the hill at <br />an elevation of 84, that would be the proposed location of the <br />driveway. This would allow for very little excavation for a <br />nearly level driveway and sufficient off-street parking. There is <br />a strip of land that was sold to Mr. Prudden when the Pillsbury <br />property was sold. Over part of this strip there is an easement <br />for driveway access, and that strip, together with the setback, <br />leaves more than 50' from the road. The proposed plan was <br />presented to Mr. Prudden, who indicated that he liked the plan. <br />The layout of the land lends itself perfectly to a walk -out style <br />home. There is a 10' slope to the back of the proposed house <br />which will only require "notching in" the house to the hillside. <br />Planning Commission member Johnson asked Mr. McNellis if all <br />of the trees on the property were mature maples. Mr. McNellis <br />replied that there are oak trees as well, but maples are <br />predominant. <br />Planning Commission member Bellows asked about the Prudden <br />easement. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that there could <br />not be a connecting road, although there accesses have been <br />located around the Prudden property. There is a section of land <br />that is supposed to serve the lower lot that had to be acquired <br />through the Prudden parcel. The parcel is land -locked in a <br />sense. The access is around the northern side of the Prudden <br />property, but the McNellis property is blocked on their side. <br />However, Mr. McNellis is referring to another easement. Mr. <br />McNellis stated that the Prudden easement Bellows was referring <br />to was to come through his lot. The driveway would come in <br />through the Prudden property by way of an easement. <br />Planning Commission member Johnson asked whether another <br />subdivision would be possible in the future. Gaffron and Mabusth <br />concurred that would be possible. His concern is that the <br />subdivision was just before the Planning Commission a year and a <br />half ago. At that time, the Planning Commission tried to <br />allow adequate building envelopes and now one of the first houses <br />built in the subdivision is asking for variances. Mr. McNellis <br />stated that there is enough room to build vertically which would <br />be more obtrusive to the neighboring property. Planning <br />28 <br />