03-25-1998 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 12, 1998 line than what currently existed. The Planner again pointed out that the Building Inspector was not aware of the road right -of -way the City had obtained since it does not show up on the County's section maps. Therefore, the Building Inspector was unaware that the lot had become a corner lot. The Planner reported that requiring a survey may resolve the property line dispute between Kimmes and Farley, but it does not affect our opinion on whether the variance is justified or not. The Planner pointed out that the variance is required because the lot situation changed when the City took the road right -of -way. The encroachment of the house toward the lot line has remained the same. Therefore, a survey was not required. Schletty asked Mr. Kimmes what the survey would tell him. Kimmes reported that Mr. Farley has made statements about the street, trees, and power poles being on his property. Kimmes reported that this is not true when you look at his survey. Kimmes reported that when the street was reconstructed in 1995, each of the adjacent property owners granted a 12 -' foot road easement. Kimmes pointed out that the survey will show where the house lies in relation to that easement. Keis asked if the Farley house was within the easement area. Kimmes felt the survey should be required since Farley may have a house on City property. Kimmes felt that before a variance is granted, the City should know this. The City Planner pointed out that the City hired a surveyor to draw up the easement descriptions for the roadway. The Planner felt that the surveyor would have identified any encroachments onto that easement at that time. Therefore, the City is satisfied that the Farley house is not within the easement area. The Planner indicated that the setback of the Farley house from the property line may not be exactly ten feet, however, the house is no closer to the property line than it was previously. The Planner also pointed out that prior to the lot becoming a corner lot, given the time that the house was built only a five foot setback would have been required. The Planner stated that getting a survey may be interesting, but it does not affect his opinion about whether or not the variance is justified. Mr. Montour recommended approval of the variance allowing a side yard setback on a corner lot of less than 30 feet for the house at 777 East Viking Drive as requested by Mr. David Farley based upon the findings in the City Planner's report dated March 9, 1998. Page 13