Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning <br />April 15, 1981 <br />Page Three <br />410 Mr. Doyle suggested using a zero lot line with the construction of cluster <br />of homes on either side of the street and leave the two end lots open. <br />Mr. Gary Bathke arrived. <br />There was discussion on how the front setback figures were arrived at and <br />if there was an estimate of the cost if this figure was altered. <br />Mr. Doocy moved to approve the variance for STJ Construction to reduce the <br />setback from 30' to 10' with the stipulation that lots 6,7,8,9 be seriously <br />considered for zero lot line construction. Seconded by Mr. Prokop, and he <br />added lots 4 &5, and 10 &11 be considered for zero lot lines. Mr. Doocy <br />accepted the amendment. Mr. Prokop added that he approved this because of <br />the land. Motion failed on a 3 to 2 vote. <br />Mr. Johnson said he would be in favor of a 20% reduction in setback. <br />Mr. Prokop moved to call for a second vote on this matter. This is not <br />permissable under the Robert's Rules. <br />Mr. Bathke asked if a lesser setback variance was approved, has anyone said <br />this would not be granted a permit? Mr. Doyle said, No, but they had set the <br />criteria and this setback would comply with those requirements. <br />Mr. Prokop moved that SEIJ Const. request for a variance on setbacks on Lot <br />•4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,26, block 5, Lakes #2 be granted for not more than 15' <br />and not less than 10' and that Lots 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 be considered for <br />development with zero lot lines in order to provide space around the homes. <br />Mr. Prokop stated that his reason for doing this is that a clear case of <br />hardship to the property has been demonstrated by Mr. Doyle. Seconded by <br />Mr. Doocy. Motion carried on a 5 to 1 vote. <br />Mr. Bathke assumed his seat as Chairman. <br />ALCOCK - VARIANCE <br />This is a variance for the division and sale of property in the Alcock Estate. <br />This variance is necessary because of the moratorium on the transferring <br />of property by metes and bounds. <br />Mr. Doocy asked what the land would be used for after it is sold and it was <br />generally felt it would be used for agricultural purposes. There would be <br />a house constructed on one parcel. Mr. Schumacher remind the Board that <br />the Ordinance does require Park dedication when lands are divided by metes <br />and bounds. <br />Mayor Gourley noted that the park dedication would not be required at this <br />time since these lots are not buildable. When the land is developed, the <br />park dedication would be required. <br />41, Mr. Johnson moved that the variance be recommended for approval and that no <br />park dedication be required at this time. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion <br />carried. <br />VARIANCE - HENDRICKSEN <br />