04/15/1981 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning and Zoning April 15, 1981 Page Two The concern that a divider of some manner be installed between the entrance • and exit of the proposed driveway in order to avoid confusion. The surfacing of the parking lot was discussed. Mr. Schumacher read from the Ordinance as to the requirements. There was discussion on the anticipated number of parking spaces needed and the anticipated number of persons who would be there air any one time. Mr. Johnson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this proposed business and there was none. Mr. Prokop wanted it on the record that the living quarters of this building will not be used for residential purposes. The developers said there is no plans for any residential use of this building. Mr. Prokop was concerned with the capacity of the septic system. Mr. Prokop moved to recommend to the Council this Special Use Permit be approved according to Plans submitted by petitioners,Choice #1, new well be installed, petitioners recognized the septic system may need to be enlarged, class #5 aggregate and the Parking may have to be revamped as the use may indicate. Seconded by Mrs. Klaus. Motion carried. Mr. Doocy arrived. VARIANCE - S & J CONSTRUCTION CO, Mr. John Doyle was present to represent this company. Mr, Schumacher report- •ed that Mr. Doyle has 9 lots that he is trying to develop on Captains Place. There is sewer and water in the street. The DNR, Corps of Engineer and the RCWB has concerns on the development of these lots. The City also has a concern with Lots 1/8 , Block 10 in that the City has installed the utilties for servicing these lots and there are assessments to be collected. These lots would need to be filled in order to be developed. This is what Mr. Doyle is in the process of doing at the present time and he needs a permit for this fill work. Mr. Doyle is asking for a variance to the required front setback in order to have to use less fill. This is because all above agencies want as little fill as possible in this area. Mr. Johnson asked how much of a setback variance is he asking for and Mr. Doyle said from the required 30' fot 10'. Mr. Prokop felt that since these lots are located on a cul -de -sac, this would have an affect of having the homes being constructed very near to each other. Mr. Doocy asked, if this variance to the setback is allowed, what sort of side yard setback is being considered? will there be room for a garage? Mr. Doyle said he was planning homes with tuck under garage which would leave the side yards free. The distance of the home from the curb was computed at 17'. There was dis- cussion on the fact that this leaves no space for snow disposal in the winter. There is also a problem of parking in the driveway - this would put a regular size car or van right at the curb. Mr. Prokop asked if there were some of the lots that could handle a setback of more than is being asked for and it was noted that lots 10 $ 11 could be built at the normal setback. Mr. Doyle suggested using two lots as one with a zero lot line, this would alleviate some of the congestion.