05-23-1989 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1989 . Tim Smith eXplained his request and felt he met the standards for a variance. Originally, when this property was divided to what it is now the requirements were 125 ft. of frontage per lot. The City changed the minimum lot width requirement to 160 ft. Properties within the R-1b zone that were split prior to this change were not required to have 160 ft. of frontage. Therefore, the lot width is short by some 40 feet. Lot C and A are in keeping with the frontage requirement. Lot B is the only lot we have a problem with and we felt it was better to leave only 112 ft of frontage on the one lot than try and split them up evenly. Mr. Smith further exp1aind that this way two of the three lots would meet the frontage requirement. Concern was raised dealing with future City sewer and water to the area. Steve Rohlf addressed this concern. Steve Rohlf explained that there are two ways that sewer and water are assessed; one is per unit (each lot is a unit) the other is frontage. If the assessment is done by frontage, 112 ft. is not necessarily an overabundance of frontage to pay for. I feel it is appropriate to leave the lack of frontage on one lot versus creating two non-conforming lots. Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. . Commissioner Fuchs indicated he had a problem recognizing the need for a variance when the whole layout doesn't make a lot of sense. I am trying to look down the road when sewer and water come to this area. I do not feel this is feasible at this time. This was also the general consensus of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Morton was concerned about the potential linking of 190th Avenue and County Road 35. He further indicated there appears to be a problem with accessing Lot D. He indicated he did not like the layout of the proposed splits, therefore, I'm not convinced of a hardship. Commissioner Kimball was in agreement for similar reasons. Steven Bjork, Zoning Assistant cautioned the Planning Commission that we can not approve a variance because of an economic hardship. . Tim Smith indicated that he had the acreage but not the frontage requirement. I did not have this problem a few months ago, but I do now since the frontage requirement has been changed. Mr. Smith indicated that it doesn't do any good to ask for future overlays if your're going to keep switching the requirements all the time. I feel that this is a hardship. Steve Bjork noted that if Mr. Smith came in with the roads and the structures in place then the standards changed, then this would be a hardship. However, Mr. Smith does have a reasonable use of the property, if the variance is not granted. He could still create two lots on County Road 35 as opposed to the three proposed lots. Commissioner Fuchs indicated he was uncomfortable with the three accesses onto County Road 35. Commissioner Fuchs suggested that if you made one access and came in with a short road to a cul-de-sac you could access lots A, B. and C and have one access onto the County Road instead. Mr. Smith indicated this was not economically feasible because I'm only creating three lots.