CC MINUTES 06281977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Koski was present and said he needed the additional three feet in front so he could place a side door in the front of the garage through which he could enter the front door of his home. Motion by Councilman Stauffer and seconded by Councilman Haik to grant a two foot variance to the total side yard requirements which will enable Mr. and Mrs. James Koski to build the garage they requested in the location they requested to replace the existing garage on their home at 3317 Croft Drive because of the topographical conditions of the parcel of land in- volved. Voting on the motion: Aye: Stauffer, Haik, Sauer and Sundland Nay: Miedtke Motion carried. Mr. Rymarchick then reported on the Public Hearing held by the Board on the Concept Development Plan for the Hedlund P.U.D. saying it was the four to one opinion of the Board members present that the plan as presented by Mr. Hedlund and his consultants was a reasonable one and the most desirable offered in the many years of controversy over the development of the Hedlund property along Silver Lake Road across from Apache. The Council was also provided copies of letters from two absent Board members, Mr. Johnson- and- Mr. Hiebel, which basically agreed with the findings of the majority of the Board. Mr. Hiebel was also present at the Council meeting and joined in the discussion. John Daubney, an attorney representing Mr. Hedlund, said many of the conditions set by the Board in their recommendation for approval of Concept Development Plan would be worked out in detail during the last stages of the P.U.D. process in accordance with the City Zoning Ordinance. He said he felt the minutes of the hearing accurately reflected what had happened during the hearing and commended the Board for the fair treatment his client had received. Regarding one of the conditions, the attorney said Mr. Hedlund could live with the stipulation that the existing structure on the westerly portion of Lot 10 would retain its basic structure but would have its use revised. Its owner did not intend to move that struc- ture to the easterly portion of that lot as had been feared by the Board. Councilman Sundland concurred with the Board that a minimum of 100 foot depth should be kept for the residential portion along Penrod Lane of that particular lot. He expressed his concern about the restrictions of usage in the Plan and said the staging was very important. The Couniclman re- iterated his opposition to any drive-in business or restaurant being allowed in the P.U.D. and wanted to be sure that any Occupancy Permit was not given carte blanche so the City could retain its control of the usage when tenants changed. He said the plan would not be unpalatable to him if the uses were specified but wanted more time to study the plan which had been presented that evening. (2)