1987-07-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--"'p~'~'I'''q.' , III I III Council Meeting Minutes July 28, 1987 Locke further stated that, since the Planning Commission meeting, there had been some question on the easement on to Windsor Green's property for access to the proposed townhouse units and believed it had been resolved that the easement does exist. Robert Halva, representing Windsor Green Association, concurs that an easement exists but was not aware the problem had been resolv- ed. LeFevere recommended the addition of Condition #5 (Be it further resolved) for SP-142: That the applicant submit evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney that the applicant has an easement for driveway pur- poses over 20 foot strip owned by Windsor Green Association. Benke asked for the logic of the Planning Commission's recommend- ing denial of a variance. Assuming more land is added or a unit is eliminated, Benke stated the site plan and special use permit could be changed; and noted there may be other more desirable lot arrangements. Locke stated the action of the Planning Commission was based on the fact there was no justification for the variance to allow eight units. The elimination of one unit (the western-most unit) would not change the character of the rest of the development and would, in fact, make the setback of the structure more consistent with other setbacks along Silver Lake Road. Regarding the easement, Gunderman noted it is within .07 of an acre and asked if the road was a factor in meeting requirements; Benke stated it was not a factor for density purposes. Regarding the special use permit, Brandt stated some concerns of the Planning Commission were: 1. Place a condition that no parking be allowed on the driveways (including property owned by Windsor Green) which demonstrates we cannot meet paragraph four of the resolution. 2. Who has responsibility and who has to maintain the driveway when it is owned by one party and used exten- sively by another party? In light of all of the ques- tions regarding driveways and access, she did not be- lieve council could approve. 3. Adequate parking for that many units, although it does meet code, was left unresolved. It was suggested that an easement on north side be obtained for parking, or that the space now occupied by the excess townhouse be converted to parking. Brandt asked if the use of someone elsels driveway increases po- tential for liability for the owner. Page 5