1978-07-12 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~uly 12, 1978 Page 4 /~ Officiai Rose expiaired that a certain amount would be washed away with a~iy construction, i l,anQ Chat Ehe contractor has had a greder out twice and is maintaining the area, and is required to clean up the area upon completicn of the home. MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF ELLEN fIEGE - 8250 KNOLLWOOD ORIVE Commission Member Foss excused himself aga~n, MSP (Burmeister-elanchard) to take the issue from the tabte. 6 ayes Mr. Marrow stated that he would iike to amend thelr application to have the corner lot be 100' and the interior 1ot 80', MSP (Burmeister-quan) to recomnend approva7 to the Council of tlie minor su6divisian request of E11en Fiega., 8250 Knollwuod Drive, with the corner lot, Parcel B, to be 100' x 210', and Parcet A be 80' x 210'. The subdiW sioi~ is subJer,t to uti'iity easements. 5 ayes Comnission (4ember Giazer asked if the applicant would have to submit revised draw- ings. Official Rose replied t•hat new drawings woutd have to be submitted and would go to the Council for their approvai. Comnission Member Poss re~oined the meeting. ~ Official Rose reported that the applicant has an existing driveway located 1' uff of his east property line, and has requested approva7 to extend that drlvewa~y to his rear yard whara he is building an unattached gerage. The addttional driveway would be betwaen 1' and 5' from the property line, becaming greater as it extends riortH to the gara9e. Official Rose explained that the hane was originally placed on the lot such that an attached garage could not be butit and meet setback requirements, since it is 13' off the east property line and 10.' off the west tine. The existing driveway is 1' from the east property iine, and is epprnximate7y one year old, The coAe requires a minimum 5' setback. Official Rose stated that the driveway should be a minimum of 10' wide and shouid not be against the home due to the incStne grade, and that a hardship must be steted if the Planning Ccmnission reco~nends approval. He also pointed out thet code requires p1acement~ of homes to provide for future placement of a garage. Commission Member Burmeister asked if ~r. McCann had come in to request a variance when he originally put the driveway in. Mr. McCann repiied that he had not, as he had spoken to Lhe building inapector at thet time, WaT7y Skiba, who tald him that he did not need a varia.nce as long as he got written permission fran hi5 neighbnr. tdr. McCann stated that he got the permission from his neighbor and put the driveway in, but luter ended up in court w7th his neighbor, who didn't like the driveway. He stated that Mr. Skiba fiad toTd him to theri take *he dr~veway out, but that he had ratalned a lawyer ~~~d won the case in court. Official RosE added that Mr. McCann should h~ve come befure t the Planning Caronission before he put his driveway in, but hadn'ti since the buildiny ~~•~lnspector had told him it wasn't necessary, Officie7 Rose stated tl~at he is naw requiring Mr. McCann to cwne trafore the Planning Comnission for a variance for the extension of that driveway, and that the Planning Camnission wiil be considering ~ust the ext,ension of the drtveway and not tf~e original driveway.