PL PACKET 06171991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 PLANNING COV211ISSION - MAY 21 , lC°.1 2 Page 4 3 4 Based on the information the applicants had submitted , !✓r . 5 Burt said staff perceived no problem with either the proposed 6 lot split or requested sideyard setback variance from the 7 minimum lot width requirement of the zoning ordinance. Staff 8 also perceived Advanced Design' s_proposal met all conditions 9 for a variance and should not adversely affect the neighbor- 10 hood in any way . The Manager assured Commissioner Franzese 11 that if there was any change in the existing drainage/ it would 12 have to take place on the common property to avoid any adverse 13 impact on adjacent properties . The applicant had indicated 14 compliance with the existing drainage in the area in those 15 plans . Although the final plans for homes to be built on the 16 two lots have not yet been submitted , no building permits will 17 be issued until the drainage plans have been okayed by both 18 City and State Inspectors . Mr . Burt added that because the 19 developers own both lots, there should be no problem with 20 keeping runoff confined to the common property as opposed to 21 letting it all go into the street. 22 Although several neighbors had called for further information 23 regarding what was happening on the site, staff had received .24 no calls in opposition to the planned development of the lots, 25 the Manager reported. 26 27 There was no one present from Advanced Design so the Chairman 28 opened the public hearing at 8: 19 P.M. . 29 30 Elie J. Dubay, 301232nd Avenue N. E. , the neighbor to the east, 31 reported he had utility lines running across his windows 32 which he had been trying for a long time to get removed. He 33 explained that these were temporary accomodations for the 34 existing structure on the parcel which is now empty and he 35 wanted to know just what utility easements there might be on 36 the property. Mr. Burt said he was not aware of easements 37 the utility companies might have in that area since the only 38 easement which had shown up on the survey was the one indi- 39 cated -in the ..32nd . Avenue N. E. right-of-way . 40 41 Gary Carlson, 3104 Tovnviev Avenue N. E. ,west of the subject 42 property, said it appeared to him that the surveyors might 43 have driven stakes for the front lot line seven inches into 44 his property. He pointed out that this stake did not seem 45 to line up with that indicating the rear property line. The 46 property owner based his assumptions on the fact that his 47 father who lived there before he did , had always said he under 46 stood the property line for his and the adjoining parcel 49 came right in the riddle of the existing telephone pole. -0 According to the way the stakes are now positioned, that 51 pole 'would now be located entirely on the new lot. The 52 Manager promised to review the original survey to determine 53 where the lot line should be and to let Mr . Carlson knc-,: 54 whether that document. answered his concerns . 55