05/11/1970 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

120 $700 ro $800 for the 2600' of road. However if they wished to have bituminous surface with curb, a petition for the improvements would be in order or the Council could initiate the hearing, or could call for a hearing to see if the property owners were interested in such construction. Mr. Rosengren felt it would be simple to sealcoat the streets and the job would last for a topple years; Mr. Gotwald noted that road mix would cost closer to $3,000. Mr. Rosengren will contact the owner to see what percentage is built up by the next meeting. Mr. Rosengren also noted that he had located a double power broom for the new tractor at a cost of $800; however he hasn't seen it, but will check. The hearing for rezoning and a special use permit for a mobile home park for Gilbert Menkveld was called to order at 8:40 p.m. The affidavits of publication, posting and mailing of the notices were checked and read by Attorney Locher, who declared them to all be in order. Mr. Joe Summers, Attorney for Menkveld, presented the request. He reiterated items presented to the Planning & Zoning Board, mentioning that the original proposal had contained 571 lots not in the usual arrangement, but utilizing modules of 8 or 12 units on a cul -de -sac (private street). In order to accomplish this proposal, stating that in view of the problems brought out at the P&Z hearing, they would now be happy to accept rezoning of the whole parcel to commercial (the parcel would probably be rezoned in the future anyway since it abuts the freeway), but they now requested a conditional use permit for only 100 trailer lots on a portion of the parcel designated as Phase 1. This would take care of the sewage problem since the 100 units could be served by an underground Imhoff Tank on a temporary basis. If this were granted, then they would return for another condi- tional use permit for each expansion of the park. Mr. Summers then noted the variances to our present ordinance which their proposal wouldn't meet: 1. The lot dimensions would not meet 10' x 60' size or the 6000 sq. ft. require- ment, but would range from 4900 sq. ft. to 5300 sq. ft. at a density of 4.8 units per acre, considerably lower than our maximum of 7 units per acre. A lot of the land is devoted to cul -de -sac area and more green space. 2. They also wish a variance from the 10 degree angle requirement. 3. They can meet the 20' setback requirement on the main collector streets but wish a variance to have the units set back 10' off the cul -de -sac. 4. They also wish permission to have the units 12' apart or 6' from the interior lot lines. 5. They would like to have 24' instead of 30' interior streets to give more green space. 6. Whereas our ordinance requires that 2% of the land be set aside for recrea- tional use, they have given 15% on the entire tract and considerably more on Phase 1 alone. 7. Whereas our ordinance requires sidewalks on all the streets, this would not serve their plan. They suggest internal green walkways, which they would be glad to concrete, to better accomodate internal pedestrian circulation where people would be more likely to walk. This also draws attention away from the street. 1 1