Laserfiche WebLink
Board Member Lewis asked whether this lot line adjustment includes the driveway. He pointed <br />out if the common lot line adjustment occurs, there is a condition of including the driveway in the <br />land transaction. He asked if the driveway would be in compliance if the encroaching section is <br />removed. <br />City Planner Anderson stated as part of correcting this encroachment, today's standard of a 5 -foot <br />easement must be brought in. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau asked whether the home is across the property, or whether just the <br />deck is. <br />City Planner Anderson explained a small sliver of the home is on the other property. The owner <br />would have to modify the home and remove the decks to meet the standard of the 10 -foot setback. <br />This would be a huge disturbance. The home has been there roughly 45 years. There is evidence <br />of a deck and reference to it going back to 1981. He said this current owner just became an owner <br />of the lot and would like to bring it into compliance. It is in the Critical River Overlay District, <br />which is why this item is coming to this Board. <br />Board Member Bentz questioned whether the bank had been approached, or if the owners on both <br />sides were approached to see if either wanted to buy it or split the property. <br />City Planner Anderson replied he wasn't sure if the owner to the north had been contacted. The <br />other owners are the owners of this lot. <br />Board Member Bentz asked if there is a law in effect if someone stays in a place for a certain <br />amount of time, they become the landowner. <br />City Planner Anderson responded the law Board Member Bentz is remembering is called Adverse <br />Possession. He stated a real estate attorney could explain this in more certain terms, but he said <br />he understood both parties need to be aware of the encroachment for a certain length of time. He <br />stated he was unaware if Adverse Possession came into play at all. He did not know if both parties <br />are aware of the encroachment. The owners may not have had any knowledge. <br />Board Member Lewis asked if there had ever been an application for this variance for these two <br />adjacent lots. <br />City Planner Anderson responded this is the first time the City has received an application for a <br />variance. The property at 14460 Bowers Drive had a similar scenario. There was a situation <br />where part of one property was across the property line. <br />Board Member Lewis asked if the least intrusive alternative is the second alternative, which results <br />in a more straightforward lot configuration. <br />City Planner Anderson answered it most likely is the least intrusive because it would meet the <br />minimum setback. He added there would probably need to be some kind of variance for the <br />setback. He noted he presented all the options to the Bank, and has not heard back from them. He <br />