pm_780906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-4- He also asked if the applicant had oonsidered developing the exterior consistent with the liar Mar site. 'Mr. Bresler stated that 70% of the trade was the sale of gasoline. He stated that the exterior would be mansured roof but had not considered naking it similar to the exteiror of Bar Mar. Mr. G. Johnson stated that in his opinion the proposal would carpound the traffic problem at the site and felt the application was not appropriate. Mr. G. Johnson roved, Mr. SiIrons seconded, that the Comnission reccmrend denial of Pd:>ert Daly's request for special use pennit and variance to setback at 1526 West County Road B. Ibll Call, Ayes: Mastel, SiIIDns, Cushing, Rukavina, G. Johnson. Nays: Dressler, V. Johnson. Mr. V. Jolmson stated he felt the site was a t.JOOr location for a gas station and it would be to the advantage of the City to have it renuved, but that the applicant's proposal represented an inproverrent to the site which might not otherwise be c0m- pleted and thus deserve oonsideration. Plarurlng File 1140 - Genevieve Hesli request for division of lot at 931 County Road B Mr. Dahlgren stated the property in question extends north fran County Ibad B to a point within 30 feet of the existing dedicated "T" shaped turn-around on the south end of Milton Street. '!he applicant proposes to divide the existing lot to form two parcels, one with 330 feet of depth and the other wi th l86~ feet of depth. Mr. Dahlgren suggested that the best solution to the developrrent of the property would be to request a dedication of the cul de sac fran the property in question and the contiguous property. He suggested that the property CMIlers in the imrediate area should get to- gether with the possibility of providing d30ur lots off the cul de sac. Mr. IX>nald lace, Attorney for the applicant, stated that they had entered into a sale agreerrent for the northerly portion of the property ,with the owner of the adjacent property and the 30' strip. He stated that the applicant needed to dispose of the property at this tirre since it was a part of a snaIl estate. In his discussions with Mr. Lund, the CMIler of the adjacent property who also intended to buy the property from the Hesli' s, it was his intent to carbine the property and develop the parcel consistent with Mr. Dahlgren's suggestions. Discussion Mr. lee, CMIler of the property to the east, felt that the cul de sac proposal was a good solution but did not want the developrrent to happen in such a way as to prohibit the future sale of his property. Ms. Govehut stated she also owned property contiguous to the proposed cul de sac, but was concerned about the possible prohibi ti ve oosts of the construction. Mr. ~Guire stated that the oost of the proposed cuI de sac would be approxinately $2,000 - $3,000 per lot. Mr. V. Johnson asked if it was possible to approve the division and still pennit the developn:ent of the cul de sac in the area. Mr. Dahlgren suggested the Comnission nay wish to consider approval of the division with a condition that the property not be buildable until such tirre as the cul de sac is constructed in the area.