03-25-1998 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 12, 1998 remodeling and addition that was done has put the house no closer to the sideyard than had previously existed. The same building foundation was used. Thirdly, due to the City's desire to have the road right -of -way and have jurisdiction over the road, the property has become a corner lot. And finally, Farley indicated that he feels the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Farley pointed out that the change in his garage location actually improved the situation allowing for a turn- around area on the property rather than vehicles backing blindly into the road. Knudsen asked when the existing Farley house became non - conforming. The City Planner replied that when the City took the road easement, the sideyard setback for the Farley house became non - conforming as the lot became a corner lot. The Planner pointed out that the remodeling/addition has brought the house no closer to the road than what previously existed. It was the City's acquisition of the right -of -way that brought the property into a non - compliance situation. Dick Kimmes reported that he owns the property immediately across the street. Kimmes reported that he has a property line dispute with Mr. Farley and asked that the Planning Commission require a certified survey as a condition of granting the variance. Kimmes reported that when he has done any construction work in the City, he has been required to submit a certified survey. Keis pointed out that the house is encroaching no closer to the property line than it had previously. To require a survey of the property will not change the fact that the house is 10 feet from the property line. Kimmes stated that Farley really needs to know where the property line is. Kimmes felt the property was not marketable without a survey. Kimmes indicated that he has never been able to take out a permit without a survey. He felt not requiring a survey of Farley was an oversight, and one should be required. Kimmes again pointed out the property line dispute and stated that the survey will show Farley where the property line is. Kimmes indicated that he has a survey of his property and knows where the property line is. However, this line is in dispute and the matter will not be settled until Farley has his property surveyed. Kimmes pointed out that the building plans Farley submitted were drawn by an architect and do not show the road in proper relation to the lot line. This would be shown on a survey. The City Planner reported that City Code requires submission of a survey when a building permit is applied for. However, that requirement can be waived administratively. The Planner indicated that in this case the survey wasn't required since the house was not encroaching any closer to the lot Page 12