09/26/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 Mr. Gourley called the meeting to order again at 10:08T.m. to handle three items of business on the agenda. The first itemmas an application by Donald Altic and Wendy Snyder for a. long driveway for lot,15, Equity Estates, with Mz. Kahs, who was associated with the builder; appearing for the owner. Due to the lowness of the land along the front section; the -house had been set back 430.ft. on a high spot of buildable land. The property was a 5-acre peice located on Talle Road. Mr. Gourley ,indicated that the major consideration where long driveways' wereiconcerned was that the City would not be responsible for the main tenance of.the driveway; if an emergency vehicle such as a fire truck did not have enough hose and could not get back to the house due to the condi- tion of the driveway, the City would not be responsible. Secondly, there was no provision for subdividing any property along the driveway;.in other words the driveway could not be access for additional lots, Beyond these considerations, it,was just.a procedural matter. Vi Schwankl moved to re- commend to the Council to grant the variance to the owners for the 430 ft driveway, subject to the liabilities and considerations mentioned previously. Mr. Heath seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson felt there should be ahard-: ship involved because of.the character of the land. There was no further discussion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. McLean will carry this to ,the Council meeting on October 9. The next item was a problem with a building permit for Mrs. Hagstrom, to' errect a pole barn -type building on her property. Mr. Mobley had not issued the permit based on the fact that the property had no frontage on a city street. Mrs. Ekstrom had spoken with both Mayor Karth and Mr. Gourley, and itmas felt she should present this problem to the P & Z. Her property was landlocked, with access by a long driveway. She presently had three sheds, two of which would be replaced with the larger storage building, which would be 12 feet larger than her garage. It would be used to store a tractor, garden tools, lawn chairs and maintenance equipment for the driveway. Mr. McLean asked what the frontage street in that area was; Mrs Ekstrom indicated that the'villiage would be putting in Birch Lane as soon as there was another house. This was similar to a previous problem with Maple and Orange streets before they were ,put in. It was noted the ordinance did not allow an accessory structure to be any larger than the principal dwelling. The dimensions of the new structure would would be 26 x 40, or a square footage of 1,040. The house measured 24 x 30 on the ground, with an:extensioni,of 12 x 24, a total square footage of 1,008. There was some question as to whether the attached garage, 24 x 28, or 592.sq. ft. could be included in the square footage; the ordinance was consulted, ,and any accessory building located less than 6 feet from the principal building was considered an intergral part of the principal building. .Thus the garage dimensions could be considered, and the ,new structure would not be larger than the principal building. ,Mr. McLean also noted the hieght of the accessory building could not exceed the hieght of the principal building. He felt if the sheds•were eliminated, the new structure would be an improvement. Mr. Reinert noted the side yard setbacks would have to be checked with the building inspector. The ordinance required a side yard setback of 5 feet for an accessory build- ing in a residental area, and 2 feet from the rear lot line. Mr. Doocey raised the question of whether the property was within 300 feet of the road, or whether it was a residential area. Mr. Reinert moved to re- commend to the Counci that they grant permission to put up the building