09-22-2004 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 driveway be shared at the street, and then branch off to serve any new house that may be constructed if the lot split is approved. Keis questioned the buildability of the new lot given the slope of the property. Janel Rucci indicated that a new house would be likely be constructed at the same level as the property to the north. Rucci again indicated that their purchaser has expressed interest in knowing whether the property could be subdivided. Keis asked if the buyer intended to sell or develop the new lot. ,Rucci was not sure, but indicated that it was likely that was the intention. Duray noted that the Planner is recommending that the setback for a new house be in line with the Rucci house. Janel Rucci agreed. Barraclough reported that he walked the property and there is a level grade where the building setback would be. Therefore, this is the likely area where a house would be constructed, and this area would line up with the setback of the Rucci house. Rucci agreed with Barraclough's assumptions. Barraclough stated that his only question was relative to the shared driveway that appeared to straddle the property line. Dave Torgerson confirmed that a portion of the driveway does straddle the proposed property line. Barraclough asked if the City would allow the shared driveway. The City Planner indicated that in this case, given that the new parcel does not have the full width until the setback line, it would be his recommendation that the City require a shared driveway. The Planner indicated that the appropriate documents would have to be put in place relative to the shared driveway. Barraclough asked about the reduced frontage at the street. The City Planner indicated that the ordinance requires 75 feet of width measured at the 30 -foot setback line. Louis Ahlberg, 2209 McMenemy Road, reported that he purchased his property in 1963 and was told at the time that there was something in the abstract that prevented the lots from being subdivided. The City Planner reported that one of the neighbors have submitted information regarding covenants on the property that were filed in 1952. In reviewing these covenants, the Planner felt it was debatable whether the property was restricted from being subdivided. One of the requirements outlined in the covenants is that the beneficiaries of the covenants are responsible for their enforcement. Therefore, in order to enforce, the -7-