Laserfiche WebLink
NEW BUSINESS: <br /> a. Metes and Bounds Subdivision,Albert and Donna Abear. <br /> Mr. Marohn explained the Staff Report. Applicants were present. There are 11 Findings <br /> of Fact supporting approval of this metes and bounds subdivision. We are looking for <br /> some type of easement from Tract B for maintenance of the sewer line for Tract A. <br /> Mr. Marohn stated Condition No. 2 should be deleted as the applicants will be drilling a <br /> well. Under Condition 4 there are 4 options concerning the sanitary sewer line funning <br /> under the existing accessory structure on Tract B. Option A—C were omitted. Applicant <br /> will meet with the City Attorney to draft acceptable document that would facilitate the <br /> relocation of the sanitary sewer lines on Tract B to accommodate a connection on Tract A <br /> should the existing service line to Tract A become damaged. <br /> Tract B has no water service. <br /> There is no easement for the City for the sanitary sewer line running north and south in <br /> this block. There is also a large gap to the south. Applicants have contacted an attorney <br /> to obtain ownership of this gap. <br /> There is no sidewalk between existing house on Tract A and the garage on Tract B. <br /> There is not a side-yard setback. No ordinance requirement for a setback from a sewer <br /> line. Overhead door faces Gravdahl. Zero setback from Crravdahl. Duplex will fit with a <br /> 20 foot easement. Sewer line is 7 '/2 feet deep. <br /> A motion was made by Scott Pederson, seconded by. Tom Adams, to approve the metes <br /> and bounds subdivision,based on the following Findings of Fact: <br /> 1. The property is properly zoned Downtown Mixed Use and is suitable in its natural <br /> state for higher density residential uses as permitted in the DMU zone. The <br /> property has been used for residential purposes. <br /> 2. Both Tracts A and B have more than 2,500 square feet of buildable area. Neither <br /> Tract A nor Tract B would be constrained from future development. <br /> 3. Tract A contains a dwelling and it is conforming as it meets all required setbacks <br /> and the total impervious falls under the 50% maximum allowed. Tract B contains <br /> a detached accessory structure, which is not allowed without principle structure, <br /> however, the applicants have applied and been approved to construct a 26' x 70' <br /> duplex on Tract B. Both structures would be conforming as they will meet all <br /> setbacks and the total impervious will fall under the 50% allowed. <br /> 4. Both Tract A and Tract B will be served by sanitary sewer, however Tract B will <br /> need to reserve a general easement across Tract B for continued use of the <br /> sanitary sewer connection. This has been reviewed by the City Engineer and he <br /> has stated some concerns, which are addressed through conditions to the plat. <br /> 5. The applicant is not proposing any provisions for water-based recreation as these <br /> properties are not adjacent to any water bodies. <br /> Minutes 6 <br /> Planning Commission <br /> September 18, 2008 <br />