06-24-98 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JUNE 24, 1998 Fahey suggested tl~at under the B-3 zoning Yhe McMillan's could build a coffee shop on the propeity eliininating the residentia! use. Fahey suggested that the property was too small to combine Yhe residential use. Morelan stated that he liked the concept, but felt the proposal was too much for the lot. Scalze stated that she did not be(ieve the City could legally rezone a piece of property if the rezoning creates the need for a variance. The City Planner pointed out that he has recommended in favor of the v~riance. The reason ior this recommendation is that the lot at 89 West County Road C existed prior to the development of Rosewood Drive. Before Rosewood was developed, this lot was 1n interior lot, therefore, setbacks wl~ich are ap~licable to 2n interior IoC applied. The City then developed Rosewood Drive adjacent to this property and it became a corner ]ot that came with the requirement of greater setbacks. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to ~r1nt the variance considerin~ the impact that Rosewood Drive had on the property. Secondly, the City did grant a side yard setback variance for the l~ouse on the lot immediately north of this lot. The Council granted this varilnce given the narrowness of the lot. Scalze pointed out that the Rosewood Drive nei~hborhood was developed in an effort to keep commercial development away fi~om the Iona Lane neighborhood. "Che property had been downzoned fiom B-3 to R-1. Fahey pointed out that but for tl~e develo~~uent of Rosewood brive the applicant could liave req~iestetl an RF3 zonin,~ for tl~e propeirty and could have met tl~e required setb~cl<s. `Cherefore the need for the variance was not crelted by the applicant, but by the City when the street was put through and the Rosewood Drive neighborhood was developed. Morelan i~~dicated thlt he would lil<e to review the mi~~utes from when Rosewood Drive was developed antl the adjacent variance granted in order to get a better feel for the bad<~round. Doug McMillan requested that action on this proposal not be delayed since l~e is workii~g witl~ Ienders to ~~ut the financing together for this project. Fahey asked if there was lnyone fi om the general public present wishing to comment on this matter. Dr. ICrienl<e, owner of 89 West County Road C, pointed out that the City developed Rosewood Drive adjacent to his lot that changed the rec~uired setbacks for tl~e pro}~eity. Krienl<e also poiuted out tl~e setback variance 9