Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MARCH 12, 1992 <br />Sykes pointed out that the problem in dividing his <br />property is that it is pie- shaped. Sykes noted that <br />the two lots would exceed Code requirements in all <br />other aspects except for the sideyard setback for the <br />existing house. Sykes pointed out that the road curves <br />in front of his house. Sykes also reported that if <br />option two is approved, he would have a certified land <br />survey drawn up, thus avoiding the mistakes mentioned <br />by the City Planner. <br />DeLonais asked if the house on the west could have a 5 <br />foot sideyard setback. <br />Sykes believed that the property owner to the west <br />would be willing to sell him a strip of land running <br />the entire length of the lot. <br />The City Planner replied that he would have to consult <br />with the City Attorney in order to answer the question. <br />The Planner explained that the Code allows homes <br />constructed prior to 1979 to have a 5 foot setback on <br />the internal side of the lot if the property is being <br />divided and if necessary due to how the house was <br />placed on the property when originally built. The <br />Planner was not sure how the Code would be applied in <br />this case. <br />DeLonais felt that this would solve the problem. <br />DeLonais asked the width of the property to the west. <br />Sykes pointed out that the width is approximately 102 <br />feet. <br />Pedersen felt that the variance requested was so <br />minimal that it should be allowed. Pedersen suggested <br />that the difference be split between the two lots, <br />rather than just the lot with the existing house. <br />The City Planner stated that it was his opinion that if <br />a property purchase could not be worked out with the <br />property owner to the east, that the variance should be <br />approved. The Planner preferred the original property <br />division proposal to the one proposed with the jogs to <br />the west. The Planner felt the original proposal was <br />the cleanest, and would result in only one <br />non - conforming lot. <br />Sykes stated that he, too, would prefer the variance. <br />Sykes pointed out that the new lot would meet all Code <br />requirements, and the other lot would have the existing <br />house. Sykes reported that he would be agreeable to a <br />stipulation saying that the existing house could only <br />be rebuilt, if need be, in such a way as to meet <br />Page 4 <br />