Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 <br />driveway he shared at the street, and then branch off to serve any new <br />house that may be constructed if the lot split is approved. <br />Keis questioned the buildability of the new lot given the slope of the <br />property. Janel Rucci indicated that a new house would be likely be <br />constructed at the same level as the property to the north. Rucci again <br />indicated that their purchaser has expressed interest in knowing whether <br />the property could be subdivided. <br />Keis asked if the buyer intended to sell or develop the new lot. Rucci was <br />not sure, but indicated that it was likely that was the intention. <br />Duray noted that the Planner is recommending that the setback for a new <br />house be in line with the Rucci house. Janel Rucci agreed. <br />Barraclough reported that he walked the property and there is a level grade <br />where the building setback would be. Therefore, this is the likely area <br />where a house would be constructed, and this area would line up with the <br />setback of the Rucci house. Rucci agreed with Barraclough's <br />assumptions. <br />Barraclough stated that his only question was relative to the shared <br />driveway that appeared to straddle the property line. llave Torgerson <br />confirmed that a portion of the driveway does sh~addle the proposed <br />property line. Barraclough asked if the City would allow the shared <br />driveway. The City Planner indicated that in this case, given that the new <br />parcel does not have the full width until the setback line, it would be his <br />recommendation that the City require a shared driveway. The Planner <br />indicated that the appropriate docwnents would have to be put in place <br />relative to the shared driveway. <br />Barraclough asked about the reduced frontage at the street. The City <br />Plamier indicated that the ordinance requires 75 feet of width measured at <br />the 30-foot setback line. <br />Louis Ahlberg, 2209 McMenemy Road, reported that he purchased his <br />property in 1963 and was told at the time that there was something in the <br />abstract that prevented the lots from being subdivided. <br />The City Planner reported that one of the neighbors have submitted <br />information regarding covenants on the property that were filed in 1952. <br />In reviewing these covenants, the Planner felt it was debatable whether the <br />property was restricted from being subdivided. One of the requirements <br />outlined iu the covenants is that the beneficiaries of the covenants are <br />responsible for their enforcement. Therefore, in order to enforce, the <br />-2- <br />