11-14-1988 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 ZONING FILED #1329-MCNELLIS CONTINUED Commission member Bellows interjected that there could be other ways to design an adequately -sized house as a one story house. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that if Mr. McNellis were to buy the strip of property from Prudden, he would conform to to that setback. Planning Commission member Hanson stated that is somewhat compelling that the *oddball chunk of Prudden property" could rationalize beyond the 50'. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. McNellis if he now owned the property. Mr. McNellis answered affirmatively. Kelley explained that there is no hardship. Mr. McNellis stated that the trees would be a hardship. Bellows pointed out that the present proposal would kill 19 trees. She also corrected Cohen and Hanson with regard to the Prudden easement. It would apply only to the southern end of the property, not the 28' at the top. Zoning Administrator Mabusth confirmed Bellow's observation and indicated that a lot line rearrangement would be necessary for applicant to obtain a portion of Prudden's property. Chairman Kelley addressed the issue as to where the front of the lot was located. Bellows stated that the definition of "front" as being that frontage which faces, is on or parallel to the road. Mr. McNellis argued that the road was actually a driveway. Bellows responded that it was Mr. McNellis' access and there was no question as to the location of the front of the lot. Bellows said that she agreed that the site was not easily buildable, but there were no hardships presented. She would have a difficult time granting the number of variances requested. Planning Commission member Hanson asked about the septic system. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron replied that the septic system would be placed across on the high ground, west of the drainage easement. Hanson asked if applicant would need to pump uphill. Gaffron responded in the affirmative. Cohen asked if that was a feasible project. Hanson responded that it was feasible, but undesireable. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Mr. McNellis expressed his desire to address the 26' rear setback. He explained that a portion of the lot was shaped like a deep dish, that would decline and then incline. The proposal is to have a portion of the deck that would be 20' above the runoff area. It seemed to him that the 26' setback would apply to different topography, as there would be no restriction of water running upstream or downstream. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that the retaining wall was the problem, not the deck footing. Mr. Dickey, the applicants' architect explained that there was a necessity to retain the earth. Bellows acknowledged that fact, but added that it should be retained outside of the 26' setback. Mr. Dickey said that the narrow 29