2001.12.19 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting December 19, 2000- page 5 Sandy made motion, Peltier seconded to recommend Option B, rezoning the Molitor property (northerly parcel) to Office/Light Industrial, and leaving the Tschida property (southerly parcel) zoned Urban Residential and Multi -Family. Ayes: Kleissler, Malaski, McRoberts, Peltier, Schumann Nays: Rooney, Rosenquist Motion carried. Culp & Danner Minor Subdivision On November 28, 2001 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request of Bill Culp and Norman Danner to subdivide a 20 -acre parcel into two separate 10 -acre parcels on property located in the Agricultural zoning district at 14707 Irish Avenue North. The Planning Commission had tabled the request because members of the Commission had questions for the applicant and the applicant was not in attendance. To recommend approval of this request, the Commission also needed to recommend approval of two variances. One variance would be from the minimum lot width of 300 feet required in the Agricultural zoning district. The proposed lot split would create two lots, each with a road frontage of 276.75 feet. As such, a variance of 23.25 feet would be necessary for each lot. The other variance requested is from the 40 -foot side yard setback requirement. Proposed Parcel A to the north contains the existing home as well as an existing 1,080 square foot garage. With the proposed subdivision, the existing garage on Parcel A would be located 19.09 feet from the property line. The minimum side yard setback in the Agricultural zoning district is 40 feet; therefore, a variance of 20.91 feet would be necessary for Parcel A. Staff recommended approval of this request. The subdivision request had been approved in November 1994 by the City Council. According to Washington County Recorder's Office, the subdivision was never filed; therefore, the approval became null and void. Malaski questioned why the subdivision was never recorded. Norman Culp said he thought it had been. It was discovered it had not been recorded when a relative approached the City for a building permit. Malaski said the viewpoint on variances had changed since it was first approved and was reluctant to approve the subdivision with the large variances. Rosenquist agreed with staff's recommendation and felt the owner should not be penalized for the oversight of recording it. Pletier agreed with staff's recommendation. Rooney said he felt the 300' road frontage was critical and did not approve of granting the necessary variance. McRoberts said he would not approve a variance of more than 50%, which was what the side yard setback for proposed parcel A would require.