CC 09-27-1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I September 27. 1976 Minutes of Regular Counci i Meeting Page two Wingert reported that Board of Appeals (9/20/76) and Planning Commission (Minutes of 9/7/76) recommend Co~ncl I arprovai of the 5' sldeyard setback for the proposed garage as requeste~ and moved that Councl I concur with their recommendations. Motion was seconded . by Woodburn and carried unanimously. . . . . . . Case No. 76-28, Alex Chvestulk - Lot Consolidation Wingert referred Councl I to application and attached sketch of lots 42 and 43. Rohleders Home and Garden Acres, showing a power lIne easement which diagonally crosses both lots. Wingert explained that the application was made subsequent to CouncIl's suggestion that the lots be combined to form one buildable lot. After discussion, Wingert moved. seconded by Woodburn, that Councl I approve the lot consolidation, combining lots 42 and 43, Rohleders Home' and Garden Acres Into one resIdential building lot. Motion carried unanimously. Case No. 76-31, Donald Palme - Special Use Permit for Two Duplexes Wingert referred Councl I to application and documentation submitted for building permits for two duplexes on County Road E. Wingert reported that a petition, containing about 22 sIgnatures, was submitted to the Planning Commission at the Public Hearing, opposing the duplexes. He also reported that the Parks Committee advised that one of the lots Is Included In the Parks Committee's original park recommendation to CouncIl for the proposed neIghborhood park north of County Road E. Wingert referred Council to the Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1976, recommonding Council denial of the Special Use Permit for Two Duplexes for the fol lowing reasons: l. Lot 4 Is. designated In the Comprehensive Plan as an Important part of the helghborhood park In the orderly development of this area of the Vi I lage. 2. The proposed duplex land use Is not compatible with the existing low density In this area. 3. Neighbors have voiced strenuous opposition to the duplex development. 4. Proposed construction would require extensive fll ling and would thereby create additional drainage problems for t his a re a. Wingert commented that the 'spottln!1' of duplexes In this area is a change - al I other homes are single family detached. Duplexes, he said, tend to be rental properties (at least one of the units); therefore, there may be a tendency to not ke~p property In as good repair as a totally home-owned property. Wingert noted tnat the park situation Is not resolved at this time; so, He park consider- ation should probably not be an Issue at this time. The possible drainage problem noted by the Planning Commission could probably be resolveo by the Engineer. After discussion, Woodburn moved, seconded by Crepeau, that the Special Use Permit be denied because duplexes would be Incompatible with the neighborhood which Is comprised of single-family houses. Attorney James Nielson, representing Donald Palma, reviewed the Zoning Ordinance provisions whiCh permits duplexes in residential zones with a Special Use Permit. He noted that th~ lot sizes are almost twlcethe size required by ordinance and are close to (within 200') a heavily travelled highway (Highway 51) with traHlc noises which are not conducive to construction of single-faml Iv r'esldenC8S; only fll I proposed on the lots Is to the front, rear of lots will not be fl lied because of walk-out design of the proposed duplexes. Nielson said the park questIon should not be an Issue unless the property is obtained by the City; City already has an access to the proposed park via Wesley (when constructed) and Pascal Aves. -2-