07/18/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 6 - Planning and Zoning July 18, 1979 development was segregated from the community. There was some further discussion between Mr. Johnson, Mr. Blackbird and Mr. McLean on the history of the area, the density and zoning. Mr Benson felt there wasn't enough room to make any adjustment for a buffer zone. He felt that the development would be an island surrounded by single family dwellings, considering the development east of it. It would be out of place in that location. Mr. Blackbird said that they had bought a number of lots looking onto the development and were selling these with the understanding that the proposed quads might be going up there. Vi Schwankl moved to recommend approval to the Council of the rezoning from R-1 to R-5 for Reshanau Estates, subject to a public hearing being set. Bob Doocy seconded the motion. Mr. Gourley asked if there was any further discussion. Mr. Johnson addressed Vi Schwankl to the effect that 2 months ago she had seen -nothing wrong with the project, even though Mr. Blackbird had subsequently said the density had been too high; less than 10 percent of the development had been deleted; did she still feel the same way? Vi Schwankl indicated she did. Mr. Johnson also brought up that the May 16 minutes had not been approved, pending Mr. Reinert's objections; at that meet- ing she had gone on record as saying she was in favor of high density housing in sewered areas. This had been missing from the minutes. There had been quite a few other things missing from the minutes of that meeting also; Mr. Reinert had been going to bring this up at this meeting, had he been present. The vote was taken on the motion. Mr. Gourley, Vi Schwankl and Mr. Doocy were in favor; Mr. Johnson, Mr. Heath and Mr. Shearen were opposed. The rezone request will be forwarded to the Council without recommendation, and it will be indicated that the vote was a tie. Mr. McLean will present this to the Council July 23. The next item on the agenda was the situation with Mr. Hahn in reference to the prop- erty at 1909 Birch Street. Mr. Hahn was present and read his letter of intent to the Commission with explanations. He is presently tearing down the old portion of the house, while living in the newer addition until the new house, to be built on the north side of the existing house, is completed. Mr. Mobley has issued a stop order on tearing down the old house, because no permit for demolition had been obtained. Mr. Hahn said he had spoken to Mr. Mobley of his intentions on several occasions before starting work, but had not been told he needed a permit to tear down the house. Mr. Hahn is now the owner of record, and had a copy of the contract - for -deed, which he showed the Commission. The front of the house when finished will be 32 feet from the property line, which is 33 feet from the middle of the road. The existing house (the older portion, to be torn down) is now 5 feet from the prop- erty line on the road. There was discussion as to whether Mr. Hahn needed a permit for temporary occupancy, but as this qualified as remodeling rather than new con- struction, it was felt he didn't need one. Also brought up was whether Mr. Hahn could get a building permit on a contract -for -deed. The developer for East Birch Addition brought up that the ordinance calls for a setback of 100 feet from the road. There was some question as to whether this applied where the house is already exist- ing. The ordinance is dated 1972; the house was already there at that time, so the ordinance would not apply unless the position is taken that Mr. Hahn is building a new house. The net effect of the remodeling would be that the house would be further away from the road. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend to the Council that Mr. Hahn be issued a demolition permit and a permit to add to the existing structure on the north side of the old building in accordance with all building codes. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. The developer for East Birch Addition asked if certification or evidence of title was needed for this type of thing; Mr. McLean said it was to insure that they were dealing with the owner of the property. There was some further discussion as to whether proper setback should be required or whether it should be dealt with as an existing situation. The vote was taken on the motion; All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This will be put on the Council agenda for July 23.