PL PACKET 07192005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 7 1 adding that the property had been rezoned back to an R-1 in 1988. He stated that he is strongly 2 against having the proposed multi-family unit next to his home. 3 4 Chair Stromgren asked if the current structure is physically a single family home or a duplex. 5 Mr. Hastay stated that the structure was originally built as a duplex and it still is. He noted that 6 he has not rented it out since 1988 and has lived in it as a single family home since that time. 7 8 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. 9 10 Commissioner Jensen stated that he is having difficulty with the maps and where they would 11 measure for the property lines. He clarified that if the property were changed to allow 12 townhomes,then the property, in order to match the plat map, would be made narrower than the 13 example provided. He stated that considering that intersection with four units accessing he is not 14 convinced that having four is anything that his is in favor of right now. He stated that he is 15 currently not in support of this proposal adding that he is not convinced that having four units on 16 this location would work. 17 18 Commissioner Hoska recalled that a similar request was before the Planning Commission 19 approximately two years ago and asked what the impact was to the property values when the 20 townhomes went in and did they have any opposition to the project. 21 1. 22 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that they probably had discussions about the impact on the 23 neighborhood and traffic changes. She stated that the property was a commercially zoned site 24 that was rezoned to R3,and it was a type fit. She stated that it also required two variances to get 25 it all in and reviewed with the Commission. She stated that it was a difficult redevelopment 26 effort because of the variances. She stated that the developer did have to go back a couple of 27 times to try to redesign the development with the least amount of variances. She stated that she 28 does not have any information on the impact to property values noting that it did clean up the 29 area. 30 31 Chair Stromgren stated that he understands the concerns with some of the areas yet given the 75- 32 foot easement,which is extremely large and preserves a large amount of open space for one lot. 33 He noted that it is rare for them to see a developer come forward with this much open space. He 34 stated that there are some good positives in this proposal unlike previous applications that were 35 clearly spot zoning. He noted that this is adjacent to other multi-family districts. 36 37 Vice Chair Hanson acknowledged Mr. Hastay's concerns noting that there is a potential for 38 headlight glare and asked that this be considered when designing the future development. 39 40 Mr. Martinson stated that the area has a very good grade noting that he also plans to build a 41 retaining wall to the south, which would eliminate the potential for glare from the headlights. 42 43 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that the access would come from Chelmsford because it is a county 44 road and they likely would not allow any additional curb cuts on the road. She provided the 45 Commission with a view of the property coming in from Chelmsford.