Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST 12, 2004 <br />CONCEPT <br />REVIEW — <br />TOWNHOME <br />DEVELOPMENT — <br />75 OLD <br />CTY. ROAD C — <br />JAMES <br />CONSTRUCTION <br />lot of record. Without granting the Variance the applicant would be <br />deprived of the use of an existing lot. <br />The 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 -toot 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 />Jeff James, James Construction, appeared before the Commission <br />presenting a concept for the Rezoning to Medium Density Residential <br />(R -2) and a concept townhome development for property located at <br />75 Old County Road C. <br />The City Planner indicated that in reviewing this concept proposal <br />surrounding land uses were considered. While there is sorne R -2 <br />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 -1 development is <br />served by public streets. Given the concept proposes a private street, there <br />is more land available for development. Factoring 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 6 single- family lots. The <br />