PL MINUTES 07211981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a- 1 -4- to 4-to the Administrative Assistant who. gave no recommendation because he could findno precedent upon which to base. sucha recommendation. However, he noted -several points he believed might be considered • favorable for approval, including the limited alternatives the City- has- for increasing its housing stock and the fact- that the Metro Council has. encouraged the relaxing of ordinance building requirements to provide affordable.. and alternative type housing. He also suggested approval of the concept might allow the same consideration for other substandard.. lots in the same :area., including a lot directly across the street from this site. Mr. and Mrs. Domalik answered questions from the Commission members regarding..their proposal. Mr. Berg had submitted- a map. of the area which Mr. Sopcinski noted had not been corrected to reflect the replatting of lots 6 , 7 and 8 to. run . east and west, . with frontages on Roosevelt, .when St. Anthony Road was vacated. It was assumed the replatting was done bymetes and .bounds .and Mr. Sopcinski commented that most of the lots in that. Area, including his own, are 60 feet wide rather than the required 75 feet. Individual reactions to the. proposa•1 were expressed -for .Mr. and Mrs . Domalik' s benefit. The Chairman .-views the proposal, as a good land use and one for. which, there has been_ .ample precedent set but wants the site surveyed to be sure .there will be no problem with the garage in back. He then reported Mrs . Makowske had indicated to him that she could consider the proposal favorably as long as there is documentation .that the neighbors will .not oppose the project. Mr. Sopcinski would not oppose therequest for variances but would • want more specifics regarding the structure to be built, seeing an. oversize dwelling on this size lot would be completely unacceptable. He prefers utilization of the property for a family dwelling to leaving it vacant or used for a parking lot. Mr. Enrooth commented if the variances are granted, and the owner does not build a home for himself, the granting of the variance will obviously appreciate the value of- the property but wasn't sure the City could set sucha restriction on_ the variances . He also was concerned with the size contemplated for the. structure to be built on the .property and the controls the City will have once the variances are granted. He -drew a comparison with this proposal and the Spielman request for their property on 37th Avenue N.E. , but was reminded that concept involved a two family dwelling. Mr. Peterson is favorably disposed towards the concept since the variances will have to be formally considered at- a. public hearing where more _specifics will -be : required. He was also inclined to agree that the . City may have to reduce lot . size .to secure more housing. Mr. Jones believes this will be an excellent use for this property and more benefit to -the community than . a vacant lot. He could approve the variances for a specific proposal which .would provide maximum spacing between this. and adjoining structures but would . consider none other than a single family dwelling on the site. He would also like to see the garage built on the .front of .the house. Mr. Jones agreed • there should .be written indication .that the adjoining neighbors will not oppose the concept and told Mr. Domalik specific house plans will be necessary before any variances can be considered.