1995-05-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes May 9, 1995 Page 3 Public Hearin~. continued Benke said a registered survey was performed, but questioned if Lot C's owner may had assumed the property line location when installing the driveway. Mattila verified the survey is accurate, and building permits are not required for driveways. Samuelson asked if the neighboring properties have been contacted of the lot split. Mattila said the bordering properties were contacted and support the lot split. Benke asked if the owners of Lot C are aware of or dispute the encroachment. Mattila confirmed that the owner does not dispute the encroachment. Samuelson questioned if Lot C's owner would retract the encroachment. Mattila said the encroachment is considered a pre-existing condition, however, current parking standards require a concrete area be 5 ft. from a property line. Larson feels the Council's responsibility is to rectify the matter before the lot split is approved. He questioned if 3.5 ft. could be removed from Lot A which would then reduce the lot width to 71.5 ft. Benke noted that this reduction may require a variance. Larson feels a variance would illustrate that the Council had done its job. Williams suggested that the Lot A owner speak to the Lot C owner regarding the encroachment before the Council considers any action on this parcel. City Manager Matthew Fulton said that Lot C, in its present state, is a non- conforming lot. One option is for Lot A's owner to sell a portion of Lot A to Lot C's owner in order to bring that lot into conformity. If this was performed, Lot A would then require a variance for lot width. Mattila feels the problem rests with Lot C, and it appears to be a civil matter between property owners. Fulton feels the encroachment was developed by the best guess of the property line. Mattila said many residential driveways tend to be poured without City assistance or registered surveys, and driveways built before 1988 do not require the 5 ft. setback. There were no comments from the audience. Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Larson, to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. Hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. Williams feels the non-conforming designation should be placed upon Lot C, rather than narrowing Lot A to make up for Lot C's error. Benke concurs that Lot A should not be narrowed in order to rectify the situation. Motion by Williams, seconded by Larson, to DENY PL-217. No Vote Taken. Benke asked if the motion penalizes the applicant for an encroachment created by Lot C. Williams feels the situation should be corrected before a lot split is considered, and feels 3.5 ft. should be removed from the driveway. Removing this portion would leave Lot A intact, and reduce the non-conformity's effect. Public Hearing Lot Split - PI-217 Knoll Report 95-072