CC 08-09-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Page Fl ve It was suggested that If a specific proposal for development of the property were presented, possibly expansion of the existing structure as another option, Its Impact on the existing houses In the area could be more easily ascertained. Case No. 82-17, Sldeyard Variance for Single-family Home, Glen E. and Kirsten Dawson Council was referred to Board of Appeals report (Aug. 4, 1982), Planning Commission minutes (Aug. 4, 1982) and to Planning memo (7-28-82). . Miller explained that the lot is 75' wIde and has frontage on both Siems Court and Rldgewood Court; proposed house Is 56' wide. Miller said a 10' setback will be provided at the north lot line and a 9' setback at the south lot line, requiring a 6' variance from the 25' aggregate setback required. Miller explained that the main portion of the house Is 50' x 32', with a 6' x 7' entry on the south end; a walkout house Is proposed because of the topography of the lot; access to the upper' level of the house Is desired from the 6' x 7' entry, rather than directly Into the living room; lower level of the house is the utility area. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals recommends denial of the variance, because It did not find a hardship of the land; feels house Is Improperly designed for the lot; reported that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, because of lack of serious visual or functional Impact on adjoining properties and because of the hardship of the substandard lot width and steep topography. Mr. Dawson showed a picture to Council of the lot's steep slope; explained that an alternate to the proposed entry would be from a deck, which they do not desire; want an alternative to entering only from the lower level and up toe stairway to the kltchen.d Mr. Dawson showed the house plans to Council. In discussion, It was noted that a deck entry would satisfy the fire requIrement for two entrances) queried the chances that guests would come to the side entry. Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council deny the requested sideyard setback variance. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Case No. 82-15, Resubdivlslon of Lots 16 and 17, Block 3, Shady Oaks Addition, Heinrich Loos Miller referred Council to a transparency of an alternate 3-lot resubdlvlslon of Lots 16 and 17, which eliminates the lot width variances previously proposed, and creates a "panhandle lot" with 20' wide access to Old Highway 10. Miller said the altered lot line between Lots 16 and 17 places the existing house 10' from- the side property line and garage 6' from the side property line (10' required); noted that the "panhandle lot" requires a variance from the required ful I lot width on a publIc street. Miller reviewed the pros and cons of "flag" lots; noted that this lot Is adjacent to a commsrclal parking lot, which adversely Impacts the property to a greater extent than the panhandle/driveway would. Mr. Loos explained that this 20' access also eliminates the need for direct access to Snel ling Avenue (Old Highway 10) for Lot A; proposes that Lot A also gain access to the panhandle via an easement across the rear of Lot B; all three lots would access at one point to Snelling. . (Johnson returned to the meeting) In discussion, concern was expressed relative to squables occurlng if all use a common driveway; maintenance and parking problems were anticipated. also noted that the commercial parking lot may not always be there. Mr. LooS described the stepped topography of the property, and noted the three definite areas for building sites. Loos said he proposes the easement access for Lot A because of the steep terra-In to Snel ling Avenue; lot can access directly to Snelling Avenue from a "tuck under" garage and turn-around driveway; prefers the one-access approach. Loos said the property Is very large and easily accommodates three lots. 3 lots It was Johnson expressed concern relative to a 3-party common driveway; feels 2-party may work out, but feels 3 on a common road may cause bad neighbor relationships. -5-