7.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT August 3, 2006 Page 2 1930 but no site plan was available. County tax records exist to verify that the buildings were on record and the error was probably done during construction. Commissioner Clow asked if there was any reason the Stubbs property could not be reduced from .99 to .94 acres (net). Brian Froelich replied that the properties have less than 10 percent slope and are required to have a lot unit factor of 1.0 and at least one acre according to the LUF formula. The properties are now non-conforming and would remain non-conforming with the lot line adjustment. However, the Stubbs property would become further non-conforming. The Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council on this type of proposal. Commissioner Carey requested information on any other applications for building or changes in structures on the properties. Brian Froelich replied that a fence application had been submitted but no floor area or development area proposals. Commissioner Harpootlian sought clarification on the timeframe for the applicant to comply with engineering conditions of the lot line adjustment before expiration. He commented on the positive factors of the application but did not feel that the structures encroaching on the Stubbs property was a reason to grant the lot line adjustment. He felt the lots are extremely constrained due in part to the creek location. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Craig Kirk, Applicant, stated that the house is very close to the street with little area for a backyard. Chairman Collins asked what prompted the request for a lot line adjustment. Mr. Kirk explained that the house does have side yard area but he wanted some backyard area and Mr. Stubbs agreed to adjust his lot to increase Kirk's property size. Mr. Stubbs, Applicant, stated he had seen the plan and his signature was on the application. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cottrell supported the application and stated the three non-conforming lots would be combined to result in two non-conforming lots. He felt that the two neighbors were accommodating each other and he saw no reason to object. Commissioner Harpootlian expressed that he wished to strike the first section of Attachment 2 but otherwise had no problem with the application. Commissioner Carey would approve the project based on the Town's zoning ordinances. Commissioner Clow supported the application and stressed the importance of combining non- standard lots to create larger lots.