Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 9 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON HAMLINE AVENUE FROM FLORAL DRIVE TO STH 96. <br />Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Christoffersen reported that he anticipates that Hamline Avenue will be under <br />construction in two to three weeks. <br /> <br />REPORT OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Case No. 86-12, Special Use Permit for Two Family Dwellin~ - New Bri~hton Road. <br />Jon and Joan Finn <br />Miller introduced the proposal, explaining that the applicants are proposing to <br />construct a house with an apartment in the lower level on a 22,200 s.f. lot; <br />explained that in the R-2 District, a 16,000 s.f. lot is required for a <br />two-family dwelling. Miller explained that the lot is wooded and is surrounded <br />by Hazelnut Park Oft the south, and developed lots on the north and west and <br />across New Brighton Road. Miller explained that a pathway separates this lot <br />from the residential to the west. <br /> <br />Miller explained that the "panhandle lot" was created a couple years ago to <br />provide access to this lot which previously was proposed to have access to an <br />east/west street between New Brighton Road and Cleveland which was anticipated <br />but never constructed. Miller explained that certain conditions must be met to <br />grant a Special Use Permit for a two-family dwelling in the R-2 District. <br />Miller reported that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Special <br />Use Permits based on the following findings: <br /> <br />1. Lot is isolated. <br />2. Lot area exceeds the requirement for a two-family dwelling. <br />3. Proposed two-family dwelling will not adversely impact the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Council was referred to the plans for the proposed house, minutes of the <br />Planning Commission meeting (June 4, 1986), Planning Report (4/30/86) and to <br />two petitions: <br />In favor of the proposal - presented by the applicants. Jon and Joan Finn, <br />and <br />In opposition to the proposal - presented by Roy Anderson. <br /> <br />In discussion, it was noted that several signers of the opposing petition do <br />not live within 350 feet of the subject lot; the majority within the impact <br />area are in favor. <br /> <br />Lynden explained that a "Special Use Permit" is not "re-zoning"; explained that <br />each Special Use Permit is considered on its own merits, and may be granted if <br />there is no significant adverse impact; noted that, based on the evidence <br />presented, conditions can be attached to a Special Use Permit if desired; <br />advised that conditions should be "reasonable". <br /> <br />Roy Anderson said that this Special Use Permit would have the same effect as <br />"re-zoning"; stated that they are opposing it for several reasons: <br /> <br />- It will have an impact on future development in the area; noted several <br />lots which may be of sufficient size to accommodate a two-family dwelling. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- It will open the area up for future requests of a similar nature. <br /> <br />- Existing property owners have pride of ownership which rental property <br />does not have. <br /> <br />- Said he feels the Planning Commission was directed more toward "legal" <br />than "people" issues, and <br /> <br />- The apartment was described as a "mother-in-law" apartment, when in <br />reality, it is proposed to be rented to college students. <br /> <br />Ron Wilmar referred Council to maps showing properties of residents who favor <br />the proposal and those who oppose; noted that lot owners may have different <br />thoughts than lot developers; expressed concern that the landlord may move out; <br />expressed parking and noise concerns if rented to students; said Arden Hills is <br />