CC 06-08-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kinutea of Regular Council Keeting June 8, 1981 Kr. Kulaan explained tbat be intenda to aell tbe lot on Bussard Court (Lot B) at aome future date; vanta accaas to bis lot (Lot A) because tha driva.ay from Snelling Avenue is very long and virtually unuaable; aaid he is not asking to split Lot A. Wingert moved, seconded by Hollenhorst, tbat Council approve tbe split of tbe 20' vide atrip containing tbe existing drivevay from Lot B, and conaolidation of it vitb Lot A, tbe lot on vbicb tba bome is located. Kotion carried unaniaously. . Case No. 81-18, Lakesbore Setback Variance - Lot 40, Block 1. Kartb Lake Estates Council vas referred to a survey of Lot 40, Block 1, Kartb Lake Estates. Killer noted tbat a front setback variance vaa approved on tbis lot previously because of tbe steep terrain; lot vas platted under tbe former Zoning Ordinance requiring a 40' aetback from tbe bigb vater mark; existing Ordinanca (1213) requires a 75' lake aetback. Applicant, Karcel Eibenateiner, explained tbat a 50' setback (measured froa tbelake survey aonuments) is naeded for an eartb- abeltered bouse being designed for tbis lot; noted tbat tbe survey monuments are 12'-14' from tbe edge of the lake. Eibensteiner ssid be is not building tbe bouse, does not knov tbe amoun t of a arth ahelter proposed; only request at tbis time is for tbe satback variance. ~ After reviev of tbe Planning Co.mission recommendationa, and dis- cussion, Councilman Hollenborat moved, seconded by Wingart, that tbe Council approve tbe lake setback variance of l3t feet from tbe bigb vater mark on Lot 40, Block 1, Kartb Lake Estates, based on tbe hardsbips noted in tbe Planning Commission Kinutes (6-3-81). Kotion carried unanimously. Case No. 81-15, Preliminary Plat- Resubdivision of Janet Estatea Killer explained tbat tbe resubdivision of Janet Estates is proposed in order to provide tvo lots sufficient in aize to accommodate a tvo-family atructure on each. Killar said s previous requast for five tvo-family hoaes in tbis development vas denied becauae lota were inadequate in size snd tha concentration of two-family hoaas vas considered inappropriate. Killer said be suggested, at tbat time, a resubdivision to provide some lots vhicb vould meet the required lot area for tvo-family structures. Killer explained that a Special Use Permit for tbe two-family homes is a part of the application, but is dependent upon Council acceptance or rejection of tbe reaubdivision Prelim- inary Plat; action on tbe Special Use Permit sbould be withheld until Final Plat, aite and building permit approval, if the Pre- liminary Plat is considered to be acceptable. . Hiller noted tbat a slight line adjustment of the common 5/6 lot line, vill make both lots tbe required 95' width at the setback line. In diSCUSSion, Peter Hurlowski (developer) explained that the tvo-family structures vill be similar to tbe single family structures in tbe subdivision; parpose of the mix is to stimulate sales; reaction of potential purcbasers bas been unwillingness to buy because of tbe area itself, tbe vacant property; feels the addition of doubles will generate new activity; intent is to maintain tbe same quality of construction; feels there is a strong market for tvo-family homes. ' -3-