1977-09-14 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 14, i977 Page 3 ~ Commission Member 8urmeister pointed out tliat other applicants had been turned uown in the past for not having a preliminery plat and stated that everyone should follow the rules. Official Rose Joir.ed the meeting at 8:00 PM. MINOR SUBDIVISiON REQUES7 OF ALVA MACH, 7959 RED OAK DRIVE Official Rose reported that the applicant has requested to subdivide a 165' frontage by 231' deep 1ot into two equal 82,5' x 231' lots which front Red Oak Drive. Planning considerations include thaC bath propased lots meet square footage re:~uirements, (19,057.5 square feet, white 11,000 is i~eqUired) but thaC bnih tots ha4e substandard fro~tage, being 2.5' short of the required 85'. A11 interior buildings on the pr~perty invulVed and the building ad~acent meet all minimurn setback requirements. Also, the existing electrical power line ia presently located at the rear of the yard so a 5' utility and drainage easement should be recorded with the deeds. lJater and sewer services are avai7able for the proposed new 1ot. Comnission Member foss polnted out that the drawing submitted to the Planniny Comnission was dated NQVembar 28, 1968 and asked if anything had been changzd since tt~en. Official Rose replied that nothing had 6een changed. MSP (Burmeister-Fedor) to grant the minor subdivisian request of Alva Mach, 7959 Red Oak Drive, with the lot to be split the lb5' fron~age into two equal 82.5' x 231' lots which woutd front Red Oak Drive. The City has a pollcy of 165' lots being divided equally. Also, a 5' easement shoutd be Caken on the rear lut line and should be noted on the deeds. ~ ay~` VARIANCE REQUEST OF RONAID SCHMIDT, 8456 GROVELAND,ROA~ Off9cia7 Fose explained that Mr. 5chmidt was requesting a variunce for reduced paved parking surface from 5' to 1' from his property tine and noted that the paved surface was already in place. Plannin9 c.onsiderations inctude tbat the house 7ocated a.d~acent narth of the paved survace (8460 Groveland) is located 15' from the prcpPrty line. Total setback fram th~ paved area is 1G'. The applicant's garage is located 10' from the praperty 11ne. Comnission Member Burmesiter asked why the driveway had been put in already without hav9ng a variance granted. Mr. Schmldt replied that he had recently built his home and the additional 9'9" paved surface was added as a last minute thought while he was dlscussing the construction with his contractor. Mr. SchmidC stated that there is a slight difference in etevation between he and liis neighbor so they have put in a retaining wall, which runs next to the driveway extension. Mr. Schm9dt stated that he wou~d like to keep the extension as 1t provides off-street parklhg for his guests and ellows his children, ages 2 and 4, a place to e•i~a tire~r ticy~les aad k.eeps them ofif the sYrcat. He a]so stat?d that irt th? fu?ure he w111 be wanting tia get into Ms back yard and that he had already sodded the other `,% slde of the house, and thus could not drive thraugh that way. Mr. Schmidt also stated that it ~ame to h1s attention that he was in vio7ation of the City code thc day after t~.3 drlveway was put in, and he at that time came in to see Official Rose, who