04/05/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Assistant Community Development Director Frolik indicated historically when there is no other way to get access other than the County road, it is not uncommon for the County to require merging to one access point as they get to the County right-of--way. Board Member Cleveland questioned if there are any fire code or public safety concerns associated with this request. Assistant Community Development Director Frolik responded in the negative. She explained the other parcel Mr. Swanson would continue to own would have to go through the same process if he ever wanted a building permit again, and a variance request would need to be discussed. Acting .Chairperson Brauer questioned if there is anything in City Code stating there is a maximum number of driveways that can be served by an easement. Assistant Community Development Director Frolik responded in the negative. Acting Chairperson Brauer inquired about the situation if Mr. Swanson were to put five houses on the other lot and each had a driveway running to the easement. Assistant Community Development Director Frolik replied a plat would be required, and she does not think that would be allowed. Usually when an easement is granted it would be for one parcel, anything further would require a public road. Just because the easement exists does not mean both parcels can be developed. A public road would need to be 60 feet wide. They are not at the point where they know this is the perfect spot for a public road to come in and serve these properties, which is why they are just requiring an easement at this point. Board Member Cleveland suggested something to this effect be stated in the findings of fact. Assistant Community Development Director Frolik indicated the existence of the easement would not grant the right to build another home. Board Member Trites Rolle clarified with Assistant Community Development Director Frolik that the current home and a new home could use the easement and that it would be acceptable under City Code. Chairperson Nixt commented he has not gotten the impression that the request is unreasonable and there does not appear to be a basis of not granting it. Board Member Cleveland stated she had thought she would not accept this request, but after reading through the questions under the statutory definition of standards for the variance request, the standards are met. She initially thought it did not meet that intent, but as she has gotten more information she feels that all three standards are being met. If this is approved it should be understood it is not desired to have more buildings being built in this area with access needed to more than the two houses. Board of Adjustment/April 5, 2007 Page 8 of 10