Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-14 PC MinutesMEETTNG OF THE PLANNING CQhiMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW r"~ RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA The meeting of the Mounds View planning Cmm~ission was catled ta order at 7:30 PM on Wednesdny, September 14, 1977 at the Mounds W ew City Hatl, 2401 Highway 10,' Mounds View, Minnesota 55112. Membere Present: Chairperson Haake Cormission Member Dlanchard Cannission Member Fedor Commission Member Foss Comnlssion Me~nber Burmeister 7he minutes of ttte August 10, 191% Planning Cnmmisslon fdeetinu were approved os read. Chairperson Haake asked if anyone in the audience was there tu discuss t,he home occupatinn issue and nxplained that due to the excessive amaunt of items on the evening'c agenda, the issue would be discussed at the,next Ptanning Comrission meeting on Qctober 12, 1977 and apo7oglzed t4 anyone who may have been incahvenienced by the postpomnent, MINOR SU80IVISION REQUEST OF DALE 8Et~7LEY, 78i15 ~REEMVOOD DRIVE :hairpoerson Haake explained that Mr. Bentley was requesting to subdivide his corner lot 230' x 131' inta two lots. The corner lot with an existing hon~e located on it woi+ld be 130' fronting Hi11v1ew and 131' fronting Greenwood Drive. The in4erior 1ot franting Nillview would be 100' wide by 131' deep. , Planning cunsideratlons include that bath lots meet size requiremants of both frontage and square footage, a11 structures on interior and exterior of property 1nvolved meet minimal setback requirements, sewer service is avaiiabie nt street, but no water service is provided. It was r2comnended that sinr.e 9t was the last lot to b,r, developad between Long Lake Raad and Greemvood Orive that an additional 10' easement be taken along HillvieN frontage to allow the placenent of a private water line for the new lot. The water 4mprovement would have to be put in at the owner's expense. Also, electrical power could be taken from the south property 1ine, and the south 5' shouTd be taken as a drainage and ut171ty easem~nt. Mr. BenC]ey has y9ven 10' drainage (5' each lot) along the carmon lot line. Comn9ssian Member 0urmeister asked Mr. Bentley if he realized Chat he or the purchaser of the property would be responsibte for putting in water and untilit•ies at his expense. t4r. Bentle,y replied that he was aware of that. He also staCed that there was already an exisCing ut111ty easement cn the east side of the proparEy Chat was there when he purchased 1t. MaP (Foss-~tanchard) to yrant OaTe Bentiey's request far a ninor subdivisian frae one, lot into two as submltted in I~is request, with a 70' easement on the north boundmry tine and 5' easements eleng the south and common 1ot 1ine, and a 5' eesement, if there (s not already one there, on the eest praperCy 11ne for dralnage end ut111ties. 5 ayes ~ September 14, 19)7 P89N 2 -^ MAJOR SU6~IVISION REpUEST OF_RAY GAL~s 8243 GROVELANO ROAU Ken SJodin, representing Ray Ga1e, explalned that some unknown factors had ~ust bean brough: to his attention regarding the subdivisioh request and asked that the dis- cussion be postponed until the next Planning Commission Meeting, Chairperson Haake agreed and asked Mr. S~odin if he woutd 11ke to advance to his next item on the agenda since they would not be discussing Mr. Ga1e's request. Mr. S3odin stated he would tike to advance to his ~ext itein. 1MJOR SUBDIVISiON REQUEST OF KATHLEEN AERG, 8470 SUNNYSIDE ROAD Chairperson Naake exptaine~ that Kathleen Derg o-~as requesting to subdivide the 1ot presentl,y approximataly 234' deep, fronttnq Sunnyside Road 513.7' and fronting County Road J 144'. The s1x lots creeted would ba ~or~nel~i7~ County Rosd J and Sunny- side Road 144' and 100' respective'ly, and four of the interior lot5 would have 82' frontages on Sunnyside and 234' depths with the exception of the northerly one whfch wouid have two rear yar~d depts ~f ]44' for 55,6' starting from the north, and a 234' depth for the remaining 29.34'. The sixth and most southerly lot would be 85.7' fronting Syr~nysfde and 234' deep. P7anning considerations inalude that all lots have required square footage and that lots 1 and 6 meet fronta~e requirements, while lots 2-5 have 8Z' frontages, which is 3' substandar•d of thc 85 required. Services have been proJided for the six lots on S,nnyside Rond. Extsting electrical power is Tocated aiong the r~ar praperty line and a 10' easement has br,en granted atong the rear lot line for utility and drainage. Additinnal dt ,.inage easements would not be required as proper elevations anL grading wouid enable the runoff to be carried to the street. A development agreement would have to be antered into at the time the plat is approved. Commission Member Burmelster asked Mr. Sjodin why the property tine on the stcond 1ot in from the north would have the ~og, with the additional 29.34' width, rather than extend the lot line back from the existing lot. Mr. Sfodin replied that the area was now two separate pieces of property and that the additional 29.34' would provide a nice garden area or whatp~er for the purchaser of the property. MSP (Foss-Fc~dor) to grant tne ma~or subdivision request oF Kathleen Berg and approve thz proposed piat of the Ber~ Addition from 1 lot into 6 lots, with lots 2-5 having fro~tage of 82' and lot 6 having 85.7' froiitage and lot 1 having 100' of fironta~t., sub~ect to the developer ~ntering 9nto a deve7opment agreenient with the City and sub~ect to a new pre7lminary plat being drawn to meet the City's subdivision ordinance requirements. Lo~s 2-5 are to have a 3' variance an the frontage requirements because it conforms with the other lots in the block. 5 ayes Cn~nission Member Burmeister pointad uut to Mr. S~odin that all applicarts have ele+ays been instructed that they should have a qreclse preliminary plat in order Co be granted a ma~or subdivision. She stated also thet she felt that someone who had worked with the City as often as Mr. S~odin shou7d be aware of the rules and follow them. Mr. S3odin agreed that the drawing be had presented was not sufficieni to rneet the City's cnde but stated that he had s~oken to Ufficial Rose and submitted tfle drawing ....i in urder to save the month it would have taken to have a new plat drawn up and pre- senCed to the Planning Cammission. He Also stated that a new preiiminary ptat wouTd be dr~wn up and submitted since approval for the subdivision had been granted. September 14, i977 Page 3 ~ Commission Member 8urmeister pointed out tliat other applicants had been turned uown in the past for not having a preliminery plat and stated that everyone should follow the rules. Official Rose Joir.ed the meeting at 8:00 PM. MINOR SUBDIVISiON REQUES7 OF ALVA MACH, 7959 RED OAK DRIVE Official Rose reported that the applicant has requested to subdivide a 165' frontage by 231' deep 1ot into two equal 82,5' x 231' lots which front Red Oak Drive. Planning considerations include thaC bath propased lots meet square footage re:~uirements, (19,057.5 square feet, white 11,000 is i~eqUired) but thaC bnih tots ha4e substandard fro~tage, being 2.5' short of the required 85'. A11 interior buildings on the pr~perty invulVed and the building ad~acent meet all minimurn setback requirements. Also, the existing electrical power line ia presently located at the rear of the yard so a 5' utility and drainage easement should be recorded with the deeds. lJater and sewer services are avai7able for the proposed new 1ot. Comnission Member foss polnted out that the drawing submitted to the Planniny Comnission was dated NQVembar 28, 1968 and asked if anything had been changzd since tt~en. Official Rose replied that nothing had 6een changed. MSP (Burmeister-Fedor) to grant the minor subdivisian request of Alva Mach, 7959 Red Oak Drive, with the lot to be split the lb5' fron~age into two equal 82.5' x 231' lots which woutd front Red Oak Drive. The City has a pollcy of 165' lots being divided equally. Also, a 5' easement shoutd be Caken on the rear lut line and should be noted on the deeds. ~ ay~` VARIANCE REQUEST OF RONAID SCHMIDT, 8456 GROVELAND,ROA~ Off9cia7 Fose explained that Mr. 5chmidt was requesting a variunce for reduced paved parking surface from 5' to 1' from his property tine and noted that the paved surface was already in place. Plannin9 c.onsiderations inctude tbat the house 7ocated a.d~acent narth of the paved survace (8460 Groveland) is located 15' from the prcpPrty line. Total setback fram th~ paved area is 1G'. The applicant's garage is located 10' from the praperty 11ne. Comnission Member Burmesiter asked why the driveway had been put in already without hav9ng a variance granted. Mr. Schmldt replied that he had recently built his home and the additional 9'9" paved surface was added as a last minute thought while he was dlscussing the construction with his contractor. Mr. SchmidC stated that there is a slight difference in etevation between he and liis neighbor so they have put in a retaining wall, which runs next to the driveway extension. Mr. Schm9dt stated that he wou~d like to keep the extension as 1t provides off-street parklhg for his guests and ellows his children, ages 2 and 4, a place to e•i~a tire~r ticy~les aad k.eeps them ofif the sYrcat. He a]so stat?d that irt th? fu?ure he w111 be wanting tia get into Ms back yard and that he had already sodded the other `,% slde of the house, and thus could not drive thraugh that way. Mr. Schmidt also stated that it ~ame to h1s attention that he was in vio7ation of the City code thc day after t~.3 drlveway was put in, and he at that time came in to see Official Rose, who September 14, 1977 Page 4 ~°a,recommended that he approach the Planning Cuinmission for their decision. Cheirperson Haake stated that the only times the Planning Commtsslon has ai7owed dr1veways that close to the property lin• was when people have reniodeled their gara9es lnto famity roams or an addition to their house and then added a new garage behind their house and needed the variance in order to be able to drlve back to the new gnrage. Comnission Member fedor asked Mr, Schmidt what his ~eighbor thou~ht of the driveway being thet ciose to their shared lot line. Mr. Schmtdt replied that he has a notarized ietter from his neighbor stating Chat he had discussed the driveway with him and that the neighbur was not age9nst it. Mr. Schmidt also stated that he did not have nny racing cars or boats that would be kept on the driveway but thaC he did want the extra parking space for his guests and for h1s children. Commission Member Burmeister stated that his regular dri~eway was aiready large enough for his guzsts and for his children to play on. Chzirperson Haake inquired if the driveway was asphait or cement. Mr. SchmidC replied Yhat it was asphalt. Chairperson Haake pointed out that the extension ~ould be cut 4' to meet the 5' code requirement and still provide an extra 8' of paved surface $ince the garage daor is 3' in from the end of the garage, whfch would be enough sF~ace Sn which to park a Chird car. Commission Member Fedor asked the Comnission t4embers to remember that the neighbor had said the drivewny did not bother him. Corcenlsslon 14ember Burmeister replied that the Vlanning Commiss9on could not te11 one oerson to take out his cement driveway which was in violatian aiid then 1et anether persnn Ieave his asphait driveway in. Comnission Member Fedor asked if there were any exceptions that the City had made on similar situations before. Offiaial Rose replied that several variances have been granted for 7ess tban 5' but pointed out that a hardship is required for grantiny a variance. Co~iission ~Qember Fador stated that the Planning Commission had once granted.a variance of that nature ta save a tree and that va~°iances have been granted before. ChairpeYSOn Haake asked where the garage was lncated on the lot ad~acent to Mr. S~hmidt's. Mr. Schmidt replied that it was on the far side, away from his house. Chairperson Haake alsn pointed aut that the Planning Comnission cauld not teke into consideration ti~e fac4 that Mr. Schmid~ was not pTanning on parking race cars or boats on the driveway as the City did not know•how long he would be the owner of the prapert.y. Commission Member Burmeister stated that she felt if Mr. Schm9dt had come in before the Griveway was laid and requested a variance, Chat it most likely would not have been granted. Comnission Member Fedor asked the Planning Comnissiun to remember that Mr. Schmidt hr.d cane 1n to the City on his own efter realizing that fie was in violation, while there were several other violators within the City who have not come in and reported themselves. Commission Member Foss asked ~ir. Schmidt if he ta'iked to his builder 6eE~re tha driveway taas put in. Mr. Schmidt rePtied that he had discussed tt wdth the builder ~./ before the paving was done and that he had intended for it to be narrower to allow h9m ta put in shrubbery betwean the driveway and fence, buC that the workers had go~~en carried away while laying the driveway and came within 1' of the loL 71ne. He steted September 14, 1977 Page 5 r/"~Chough that he had planned on being closer than 5' to the lot 11ne. MSP (Naake-eurmeister) to deny a variancs for Ronald Sclimidt at 8456 Groveland Road to have a paved surface that would be 1' from Che 7ot line an:; recomnend theC he remove 4' of the paved surface so that it will be in conformah+:e taith the City code of 5' fror~~ the iot line. 3 ayes 2 nays Mr. Schmidt stated that if the Plannin9 Commission members wouid dr{ve through the City, they would note other instances of violations which residents had not reported. He also pointed out that he had paid addiCiona7 money to have the extension built and now would be paying ayain to have it taken out. Chairperson Haake asked if h1r. Schmidt ~ould appeat the Planning Co~rmission's decision tc the City Council. ~fficial Rose replied thaC he could but that it would be at Ms own expense since a public hearing would have ta be held and a certificate of property owners within 350' of his property would have to be supptied to the City by Mr. Schrnidt, which wo~1d cost between $30 and $60. Officia7 Itose also reported that buiiding permits Are not being app7ied for for less than 5'. Ne also repar~ed that the asphait company Hihich 'laid the driveway had applied for the permit and that a City inspector had gone o~at and inspcct?d the driveway and reported the violation to tlfficial Rose, and brought Mr. Schmidt in to see him. He, at that ¢ime, advis~d Mr. Schmidt to e9ther take the extension out to meet the 6' ti•equirement or appear before the Planning Commission. VARIANCE REQUEST OF VIRGIL EHRREICN, 2193 OAKWOOp DRIVE Officia'• Zose expiained that Mr. Ehrreich has requested to buitd a garage-liouse addi- tion to his existing house which would place the new foundation 6' from hi, property line, while the code requires 10'. Pianntng considerations include that tiie hnuse which wautd be located ad,~8cent to the new additi4n 1s 12' from the comnon property line, and the total setback between the new addition and ad,iacent house is 17'. The addition wauld 6e composed of a ground level garage wlth,living quarters t~ be located above it. The garage addition would be 7Tf3 square feet, which meets code requirements. There is an existing garag~ 7ocated behind +Lha hruse, which is 320 square feet and wou7d be requ9red to be reduced to 218 square feet, which is the maximum allowable size for accessory bui7dings. The house front is presentiy located 5U' from the bou7evard, and the addition wou]d extand to 44' which 9s within code reqairements. The lot frontage is 75', which is 10' substandard. Chairperson Naake asked if the roof of the accessory buildin9 would hiock the view of the- 19ving quarters. Mrs. Ehrreich replied that it would not. Comnission Member foss asked what the size would be qf the new building. Mrs. Ehrreich replied that ii wouid be 26' x 2t3', wiCh the same sir.e living quarters aDove it. Commissian Member Foss also asked if a house or garage setback wouid be required and -•, what the maln purpose of the building would be. Official Rose repTied that iL is the ; Stai'f's responsitr111ty t~ anforce the code in the mnre stringent way and st»ce the ~-/ living quarters proviJe the higher standards, it would be c~nsiGer~d a h~using variance. September 14, 1977 Page 6 MSP (Fedor-87anchard) to approve the 5' side yard variance for Vlrgit El~rrelch, /-•,2193 Oakwood, for the purpose of building an tiddiCion to Ms house. The variance vouid be granted due to the hardship cr~eated by the substandard iot frontage. 5 ayes Comnissian Member Mackeben Joined the meeting at 8:45 PM, wMie Comn9ssion Mem6er Burmeister was excused from t,he meeting at 8:45 PM. MTNOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF HELEN NACKETT - 7456 GROVELAND ROAO Official Rose explained that Mrs. Hackett has req~aested to subdivide her 1ot which fronts 6oth Knollwood Drive and partially Grovelond Road, to be 132' wide x 274' deep, The lot fronting Knoliwood tivould be 132' and 137', and the lot parCial'ly fronting Groveland Road would be 132' wide x 137' deep. Plar.nin~ considerations include that both lots have 18,084 square feet, which exceeds t'r~e requirement of 11,000 square feet. The lot fronting Knollwood has 732' of frontage whicfi a7so exceeds the requirement of 85'. The lot which partially fornts Groveland Road only has 18.68' due to the early uriusual platting. A variance would be required for substandard frontage of 78,68' s9nce it is 66.3' short. Mrs. Hackett's home and garage presently ara located on one 1ot partially fronting Grnveiand and meet aiT setback requirements. Tfie driveway provides access to both Grove~and Road and Knoltwood Drive and the extension Cn I<no77wood Urive wuuld have to be removed. The house is presently being served from the Groveland Road side and services are availabte fur the new lot fronting Knollwood Drive. The Fire Department sees no problem in providing protection to the suhstandard frontage 7ot. Both houses ad~acent to common property ,__ lines are located 20° from the lines. Aiso, if Groveland is exte~ded south, no further ~asements would b~ necessary from Mrs. 1lackett's praperty. ~ 1 Comnission Member Mackeben asked what the purpose wautd be for the aaseTent on the north lot line. Officlal Rose replted that t,here is not a cormnon rear lot lina so an ease- ment would be required to connect easements. It was aiso noted that this was a very unusual circumstance in that the frontage on Groveland is only 18.68', requiring a 66.3' variance. MSP (Foss-Fedor) to approve the minor subdivision raquest of lielen Hackett, 7458 Grove- land Road as presented in the request, with a variance for the lot facing Groveland Road be~ause it is an existing structure that was done many years a~o through previous planning and because of the way Groveland Road ends arid Bronson Orive sterts, that there is na other way that it could be done. A1so, a 5' easement on tha cann4n )ot lines and a 5' easement on the north lot lines would be required. 5 ayes VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE - 7295 SILVER LAKE ROAO Officia7 Rose reported thnt the apR7icant is reyuesting to instell se7f-service gas pump facillty which requires a 8-3 conditiona7 use perm7t. 'fhe instellation of the pump service reduces the parking capacity to 15 spaces, while 20 are required. Vlan~ing considerations include that the present zoning 9s General Business - Sho ping Center, B-4 vihich the Comprehensive Land Use addresses the use itself as Neighbor~ood Business, B-t, und the property south of it Metlium Density, R-2 and R-3. The requesCed use would require a 8-3 conditionat use permit, which is a more intense use than the ~.~-1 useage implied by the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the appllcant has provided for ',5 parking spaces, which is a reductiun of the existing speces, being 5 short of the code requirement. 9 spaces would be pr•ovided Septemtldr 14, 1977 Page 7 .~ behind the store, ~ahile the store only has a fi~ont entrance, ~ahich due to the distance ~ to the front, would seem impracticat. The rear parking also has bad accass. E11mi- nation of parking space N8 would a11ow a proper isle on the south side, wh11e a circle drive should be required that would extend along the north side of the building. The paved area onty extends 36 feet from the buildiny whicli negates ~he possibility of twa way traffic and requires the circle to be a ane way drlve, The paving shoutd be extended to the south Co allow for addltionat parking,spaces. A1so, a rear entrance intn the bullding should be required for the rear parking facilities. Steckirg of cars wanttng gas could posslbly block curb cuts due to short staaking lanes. A screening fence of minimai E' height should be installed alung the east and south property 11nes, being opaque, and tighting shouid be required for rear parking facitities that does not extend on t~ R-1 properties. Stanley Begin introduced himsetf as the representative fnr the company.Chat saou7d convert the 7-Eleven store into a setf servlce station a1so. lie stated that most corrtnunlties consider the pump 1s1anA a~ four parking spaces and that so far, they have not experiQnced a stacking problem at the Tsland. The average tima spert at the pump seems to be 3-4 minutes, which was determined in a study his compan, did. Mr. Beqin stated that h~ agreed with many of the points Officiai Rase presented and requested a 1ett2r from Official Rose ~~ith those points listed so that he cauld ga over thpm wif.h his ctiant. Mr. Begin also stated that predictions are that by 1980 over 85 percent of a17 gas disbursement in the U.S. w111 ue through convenience stores. He steted that they have closed 78 ma~or service s4ations in the 'fwin C1ty area 1n Che pasC few years, wl~ich have been converted to dry cteaners, 7-Elevens aud so forth, and ~ recomrended that it would be an ssset for Mounds View to have such a_Eation. ~ hir. Begin presented a petition of 77 signatures supporting the 7-Eleven gas statlnn ~ and stated that the petition had been taped ta the count,er of the 7-Eleven for patrons to sign. Chairperson noted that the petition had been recelveA by the Planning Comnission. Mr. 8egir~ atso stated that self service gas stx.ions have proved to have a better saFety record than other s~ations since the person mon•itoring the pumps watches the cars as they putl in an~ controls the pumps, thus not turning them on if some~ne is smoking. Chatrperson Hcake pointed out that with the parking in the rear cf the store, Che patrons wouid be tikely to park at the pumps and go in the store, thus caustng stacktng for thase walting to get 1n for gas. Comnission Member Mackeben stated that he saw a number of problems with the propasal, with only 22' from the pump to the entrence, which would allow nnly one car, and if there were three cars at one time, tfiey would be backed up to Silvsr Lake Road. He T1so stated that of a11 the probtems, the parking and safety on Silver Lake Road ~dith the stacking woulC be the mein problem. Mr. Beyin requested permisiion from the Ptanning Comml:sion to table the is,-~ue to ctlow him tlme to talk to his cllent to see 1f the requirements~and reCOmmendations could be met. Chairperson Flaake stated she would sti11 like to make a motion to back up the Planning Cammission but Offtcial Rose pointed out that Mr. Begin had the right to table ~"j the issue if he wanted ta. September 14, 197~ Paqe 8 Commissian htember Fedor pointed out thal between ZO-40~ of the signatures on Lhe pstlBton ~ were from residents outside Mounds View, such as f.ambridge, Minneaoolis and Coon Rapids. MSP (Fass-~iacket2n) to table the issue until the next Ptanning Commission meetih9. 5 ayes MINOR SUNOIVi5IQN REQUEST QF CHARLES_NUTCNiNSON,_290Q ARUAN_AVENUE OfficiaT f~se reportad that the applicant has requested to com6lne two lots to make twQ 'ots. A corr.~r 1ot whici, r;~uld frant proposed Knollwood Drive and Ardan Avenue wouid be 127' x 96' respectiv~ly anJ one fnterior 1ot frcnting Ardan Avenue would be 84' wide x 131' deep. Planning considerations include that the Planning Commission and Council reviewed the issue in Apr11 of 1976 and approved lhe coiicept. 7he property has since changed ownar•• ship and the new owner requests to complete the subdivision. The interior lot mcets area square fooY.age requirements, while Lhe corner iot is 204 square feet short. Bn`,h lots do not mset frontage requirements. The corner lot is 4' short of the minimal 100' requirement, and the interior 1ot is 1' short of the 85' requirement. ~oth lots could be served with sewer and water tocated fn Ardan Avenua. Ken Thcrton ihtr•uduced himselF as the new owner of Lhe property and stated that h~ had ~ust closed on the Hutchinson property and was presently in court closing on the State owr.ed property. MSP (Hanke-Foss] to approve the reyuested subdivision of Mr. Hutchinson for making two lots into two lots, with the east 1ot being 127' x 96' and the west iot being 84' by 131'. A varianco of 4' 9s granted on the east 1ot. and a 1' variance on the west lot 6ecause of the total frontage faaing Ardan Avenue since the subdivision is making use of thr, land. There is a slight ~og on the south lot line oP the propose~ east 1ot. 5 ayes Comm9ssion Member Zepper ~oined the meeting at 9:35 PM and Comnisston Member Foss excused himself at 9:35 PM due to a conflict of interest on the next issue. REZONING RE~UEST OF GEORGE PAYNE. 7664 SILVER LAKE R~AD OiFiciai Rose exptained tFiat Mr. Payne has requested to rexone two lots whlch front or corner on Siiver Lake Road and Couroty Road i for duplex development from N-1 to R-2. PTanning considerat9ons include that rne corner lot fronting 6qth County Road I and Silver Lake Road has 208.6' and 100' f~ontc~z measurements respectivety. The lot has both tha reyu9red fro»tages and square footages for R-2 constructian. The interi^r lot frontfng 511ver Lake Roud measures 132' wide and extends to Groveland Road. The 5taff hes found nn record the the 1ot being subdivided, The subdivision must take p7ace before Council could appr4ve the rezoning. A su~divisinn uf equai hatves wou)d be in correspondence with earlier subdivision and produce a 1ot which meets code cize requirements for duplex construction. Also, the present zoning is R-i, wh11e the Lnnd UsE Plan denotes the area us low density. Sewer and water ser~aices are not avai7able off Silver Lake Roed. The corner 1ot could be serviced oti Coanty Road I, - but the appllcanC musC submit a petition for services or enter into a deed covenant' restM cting development until services are available. 'tiJ Mr. Fayne stated that it wautd be expensive to br•ing the scrvices down Sitver Lake Road and perhaps too expensive for a single family homa. However, if a duplex were September 14, 1977 Pege ^ ~ allowad, Lhey ~aould not only lower the cost par resident buL also pro~~ide a buffar for tiie area. Mr, Peyne presented e drawing of what the proposed duplEx wouid look 11ke, poinCir.g out that it's appeerance was very much that of a sin~le family dwell- 1ng. MSP (1laake-Blanchard) to recommend to the C1ty Council that tha north 1ot on County Road I und Silver lake Road and the lot to the south be rezoned to R-2 from the present R-1 zoning. The re~cummendation for zoning the proparty to R-2 is becausa of the hiyh traffic volume S11vsr Leke Road generates, the forseeable development of the land north of County Road 1 and east of S11ver Lake Road into a comr,erciai development and the zoning oF the property across the street from two lots ittto a mlxed PUD davelopmenl, which could range from 1ow density to comeercial. Th1s rezcning is atso conttngent upon the deveToper coming in and subdlviding the tot directly to the south of the one on County Road I and S11ver Lake Road and that the dev~toper would enter into a development agreemenC before permits woutd be lssued. Also, the Planning Commissioh is wQ11 aware of the drainage and utility services problen~s that wi]1 have to be resolved. 4 ayes 1 nay Cortmissinn Member Mackeben stated that he was against the rezoning as 1t did not fol7ow the Comprehenslve Ptan. Chatrperson {iaako asked that it be noted that the Plenning Comnissio had seen the ~ plan's;fc* a suggeated duplex from Mr. Payne and they tiked the pTan~because,it appeared as a single dwelling but sti'11 was a doubte dwe111ng. The reason foi• -_, pointing this out was that the Planning Cormnission would prefer having a dwe111ng of ~ that type built that looke~ as much like a singie family dwe111ng as possibte. J ~ommission Member Foss refoined the meeting at 9:67 PM. REZOMTRG REQUEST OF STEVEN lOEFFLER - 7659 ~OODLAWN DRIVE Officipl Rosa reported that Mr. Loeffler has requested to develop his cut-de-sac lot zoned R-4 w9th a duplex requlring an R-2 zonin~. Planning considerations include that the 1ot has substandard frontage (95' tn buildable area) but has the required square foota~e of'12,500. ioning and Land Use denckes the area as high density, and the duplex should meet all setback require- ~ents due to the type home style be1n~ anly 54' in length. Mr. Loeffler has pro- vided 35` on the east side anA onty 6 on the west side. Retocation to the east would assure proper minlmal setback of 10'. Both the front and rear nre in excess of 30', 6eing 37' bofih. A deveTopment agreement would be hequfred Lo insure lend- scaping and paving. Chalrperson Haake steted that the razoning would he consistant with what is uccurring on the south and ~ast sides of Woodlawn Drive and stated that she felt it was a good requast and development that the City would en~oy in the area. MSP (Zepper-Foss) to downzon~ the property~at 7659 Woodiawn Urive from R-A to R-Z to permit duplex construction for Steven Loeffler. 6 myes ~ ~ Cheirperson Haake askad that it be inciuded in the the minutes that titey would like the CiCy Council to know thaC it is the Planning Commissions lnterpretation that' under R-4 zoning, all permitted uses that are 1n R-3 are a1lawEd in R-4 and it states , 5eptember 14, 1977 Page l0 ~in R-3 that mulEiple famity dwe111ngs contaTning six or less 1lving untts are alluwed. 1'herefure, kMs is a two ~we111ng unit which would be atiowed under retoning. The Council should refer to Chapters 40.12 and A0.73. VARIANCE REQUEST FOR HUGH DICKINSON, 8068 EASTWOOD Officiai Rose axpla!ned that Mr. Dickinson fias requested a variance for reduced paved service set6ack to within 7'9" of the lot line to prnvide a drive to a rear yard for a garage he wishes to build. P1an.~ing cunsiderations include that the applicant's existing garage is undersized and he wishes to remodel it into a porch and then constru^t a new two-sta17 garege in his rear yard. A7so, the appllcanC has an 11'9" setback ~rom his existing garage to his lot line. He wishes to piace a 70' paved service aEutting the remodeted garage to extend back to his proposed new garage. The applicant's lot and the iot ad~oining ±lie proposed reduced setbach have 82'5" frontages. Mr. Dickinson's son-in-iaw stated he was representirg him and stated that Mr. Dickinson OWlii the vacant lot next door also, Cumnisston Member Foss asked if Mr. pickinson had explored the possibility of putting the garage in front of the existing one. His san-in-law replled thut he had ~ot cons9dered it because of the ftowers and landscaping in front and the angles of the _.. structure. ,_.:'MSP (N3ake-Mackeben) to grant the variance request of Hugh Dickinsan, 8086 Eastwood for a 1'9" setback variance for a drivQway to go tfirQUgh frcm the street, around the side ofi the house to a new garage to be bu17t in the back. The hardship is that the existing garage is gotng tn be converted into Tiving space for the Pami7y and the only way to get back to the new garage would be along the side of Li~e garage. 6 ayes Chairperson ~aake asked.that at this time the Cominisston return to the previous discussion of the rezoning request for Steven Loeffler. There was much discussion among C.omnission Members and it was decided that the Planning Comnissian had mis- understood what Mr. Loeffler was requesting. MSV (Zepper-MACkeben) to recind tha previous motion reaAing "to downzone the propertq at 7659 Wood'lewn Drive from R-4 to R-2 ta permit dupiex constructlon for Steven Loeffler" which had been passed. 6 ayes MSP (Mackeben-Foss) to approve the Loeffler dup7ex proposal on l.ot 6, Block 2 of Parkview Terrase and that the applicant enter into a deve7opment ngreement to insure the planting, so~ding and paving required improvements are made, and that the appticant has agreed to revise the plat plan to meet building setback requirements and that the Council consider downzoning the land with the applicant's approval be- cause the use fs lower than the existing zoning. 6 ayes ~ `.r.~~ ~.., ~,<,.,_..,,, ,; 5eplember 14, 1977 Pege 11 i Chairperson Haake asked that it be noted that the rpason wliy the motion was resc9nded ~ ~1for the Loeffler development was b~cause wlth further discussion the Planning Comnission ~ reviewed, researched and analyzed the ordinance and determined that the first motion on tha development had not been required and felt that the new nwtion had to be statad to give the Cit;;:Councll their intent re~ardin9 the Loeffler request. ' 6 ayes MSP (Fedoh-Zepper) to ad~ou'rn the meeting at 11:10 PM. , Respectfully su6mitted, Pamela Young Recording Secret~ry ~~ , :,__ , F ~ ~ ,i.' ', ' ' , ~ ,, ," , ~,' * : t k ~~ ~. S f h '~_ '~ ~ { ~ ' y'~ ~y 1 l~. ~ l f Y . ~4 , . ~ ~ ~ ( j ' i ~., ~ i k ti E} ~ { + M1 ~p~ r r1WS'~Y ~ ~ , ~~ ~~~- { y~ , 1 A ~4. i't F~.~3 S~~ 35 ~ Tia ~ ~ ~ . b ~~ ~1 3F) k~ ~~' ~~ q~ ~ _ ~ ~ . ~. . yri ~ ti~i s + ~. • ~ x ! .~ ~ ~ ty <` e; } ~ T i ~ ~ { 1 ' - ) Y ' '. ~ ~ -' -1uvh; . , .. .~4 [l..~. .~ ~-. ~}E ',+ ' ~ , \ I F ~ y~ .. `,k ":~ ._ .. r a _. ~ti ~ a ~ ~~ a. } h; i ~ y'. ~~c~a t ~ ' ~ y~ ^' ~ ^i- °d t ~% i ~r Yr,&~d~`vt `~,k _' ~ t r rr ~ ~ ~k 4~'S 4t ~ ~1~1 , S~ r y~h ~~ j -l ! YY~ ~-~ r l~ry~' ~ ) ~) 3 : 1 L:'. r 1 {R -. 1 ~ Y i1~{..~~ f!i ~ . ~ '~'' . ~ ~ ~~~' ,, ! ' 1 t f F~ ' . ~ ~~ r FIJ t~i'~ ` i t F~~ " ~. ~ } ( '~ ..F e ; y r' ~9 7t ~ ~ ~ ~ . i . r'.. ~ I ~~ ~ , , i } . r l C~ 7w 7\ ~4~ 'C tl d YF~ ~ [ ) ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 > aS I F , . . ~ , .~l K~~ t ..';~ ':~ ~ ~ '~ ~V 4 ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ' ` .;~ i i`T ~~ , t`'tY~11 ' '. :~i~~ j . t l y t ,E. . I { All ~T I .S: 'i . : ~ ' ~ ~ i . ~ .~ . .r ... , ,.. . . . . ,. ~t ~ , '`~ ~ ~ f i ~ i v ( ., j ;:~ aF ~ l .. ,~ ~ 1 . ,. (t. d 1!t `y d $I~r 5 ~ ..~. __ , . ( :1 d ~ ~ ' ; 1 £ a ~ . . ~;4~ ! ., ~ ~ . ~ ~ y~ t~~ ~~~ Y~ t i' ~~` 1 ~ 2~y~ w~ ~ ' ;~ j ' - V . ' , ~ h ~ ~ 7 Ft'.1 ~ `a ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ , , ~ t , ~ ' ` ,. ~ `r 1 , ., i I s - . , ~ ~, : y . ~ u ~~. t ~ e f ' '{~' ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ` . : rl ' , f rP ., i irt ~. ~~~ C i . ' i' s ' ~ ~!''~ .. ~ . ..i~ . ~; ~ ' ~ ~ .. ~ ,. ~ t 1 .. ~ 1~ ., _. . . i, .~. .... '~ ' it. ~. . . ,~._~ ., .:. .. . , ~ . , ~ , . :i . ~~ ~ i . , ~