Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST 12, 2004 <br />lof of record. Without granting the Variance the applicant would be <br />deprived of the use of a~i existing lot. <br />'Phe Planner pointed out that the applicant submitted a survey for the <br />property today which shows that the existing driveway for 3069 Arcade <br />Street crosses the 20-foot easement for the vacant lot as well as encroaches <br />on the neighboring property. The Planner recommended that the driveway <br />be straightened out so that it does not encroach on the easement or on the <br />adjoining property. <br />Knudsen asked about drainage issues. The City Planner indicated that the <br />Building Official will consider drainage as part of his construction review <br />when the property is developed. <br />The Planner stated that, in summary, the Variance criteria for this property <br />is met due to the uniqueness of the property and the fact that it is an <br />existing lot. <br />Knudsen recommended approval of the Property Division allowing a lot <br />line adjustment and a Variance to allow a building on a lot with <br />inadequate public street frontage as requested by Oscar Lane for 3069 <br />Arcade Street subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City <br />Planner and subject to relocation of the existing driveway to eliminate <br />encroachment onto the adjacent lots. <br />Motion seconded by Duray. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />CONCEPT Jeff James, James Construction, appeared before the Commission <br />REVIEW - presenting a concept for the Rezoning to Medium Density Residential <br />TOWNHOME (R-2) and a concept townhome development for property located at <br />DEVELOPMENT- 75 Old County 'Road C. <br />7.5 OLD <br />CTY. ROAD C - The City Planner indicated that in reviewing this concept proposal <br />JAMES swrounding land uses were considered. While there is some R-2 <br />CONSTRUCTION development in the area, the majority of the land uses are R-1. The <br /> Planner indicated that he then looked at whether attached housing would <br /> be appropriate for the area, and noted that the density proposed is not out <br /> of line with R-1 -zoning. However, it is typical that R-7 development is <br /> served by public streets. Uiven the concept proposes a private street, there <br /> is more land available for development. hectoring in the development of a <br /> public street, the available developable land is reduced; therefore, the <br /> density would be reduced to approximately 5 to 6single-family lots. The <br /> -6- <br />