CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

196 reversed. Council questioned the reason for request for 10' frontage, when it appeared the panhandle would be 14.7', and it was explained that a portion of the access was by easement from the adjacent property. Mr. O'Back, owner of Parcel "A", noted that there was a 20' driveway toward the street from the house on that parcel, with no curbs or sidewalks, with an additional 15-18 feet of City property maintained by placement of gravel, which allows 35' of swing from Canyon between the two houses, which he felt was adequate. Councilman Rhodes questioned whether application could be amended to guarantee 20' as recommended by the Fire Chief, and City Attorney advised that the matter was before Council as a matter of size of lot and street frontage; that Planning Commission had already approved, subject to conditions. There was additional discussion relating to effect requirement for 20' driveway would have on lot sizes, with Planning Director responding that a condition of the Planning Commission approval was that the portion of Parcel "B" remaining not be less than 6,000 feet which would require lengthening that parcel and reducing Parcel "C", ending up with other kinds of substandardness. The matter of prohibiting parking in the access area was discussed, and it was felt that as a practical matter, it would be difficult to enforce, and probably would not be reported as a violation until a fire occurred. Councilman Rhodes questioned whether it would be possible to grant the appli.- cation at this time, but in a. way so as to not jeopardize life or property. City Attorney advised it would be possible to grant exception to the require- ment for 50' frontage, conditioned on the fact that the subdivision could be modified to require 20 feet access, rather than as represented, and that it should not be necessary to bring the matter back before Council. The subdivision map, however, would have to be amended. There was considerable discussion on the matter of panhandle lots. Councilman Henderson noted remarks of the Planning Director reaffirming distaste of the Planning Commission for panhandle lots, and the fact the property under consideration was one lot, is proposed to be subdivided into three, and the potential exists for further subdivision. Councilman Henderson therefore moved to deny the application, seconded by Councilman Keckley. In the discussion, Councilman Keckley recognized need to develop deep lots, but felt consideration must be given to requirements of the Fire Department, Councilman Arnett indicated concern for applicant's plea of hardship, and felt granting a 20' minimum frontage would satisfy safety, while permitting applicant to develop his property.