05-21-96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Second, the City would not maintain or plow the private road. The homeowners would maintain and plow the road and there would have to be a covenant set up for the maintenance. Swanson asked how the lot split could be done if it is not a PRD or PUD. Baker responded it is a simple lot split allowed by City Ordinance. How would a fire truck get back there on that narrow road? Mattila said the Fire Department has reviewed the plans and, though it is not a 60-foot wide right-of-way, the Fire Chief said they could live with the plan. That’s why the Fire Department required the turnaround. Swanson asked who puts in the fire hydrant. Mattila responded there would have to be public utility easements going back through there. Brottlund said he spoke with the Fire Chief and there would be fire hydrants installed at the end of the driveway at Brottlund’s expense. The turnaround was measured to fit the new fire equipment. Brottlund said both the Chief and the Fire Marshal reviewed the plans. Brottlund stated he wanted to talk about the owner-occupant situation versus the rental situation. Two quality contractors are interested in the property and have clients who want to build to live there. These would be single family twin homes. Most of their clients are retired people. The turnaround should solve any traffic problem. Brottlund said people referred to comments made by land developers 20 years ago. No one has come up with evidence of City action or restricted covenants put on this property. There is about six acres of vacant land in the center of that block, which has been zoned R-2 and R-3 for over 20 years. The land has not been developed has been primarily because there has not been interest in it or adequate access to it. Brottlund said his mother and father purchased their property 18 years ago and they knew it was zoned R-2 and R-3. They intended to develop it in the future. The fact is the property is zoned R-2 and the size of the lot meets all the criteria for two family dwellings. Brottlund said he could guide and direct the developer of the property to owner-occupied units. Brottlund stated owner-occupants take better care of their property. Turbak asked if Brottlund were going to build balconies off the back. Baker said Turbak must direct his questions to the Chair, not the developer. Turbak said a balcony would extend 8 or 10 feet and would be even closer to his house. He commented he was not a friendly person. Brottlund said a balcony would be 20 feet from the property line and approximately 70 feet from the back of Turbak’s house. ? Baker asked if the back of Turbak’s lot would be considered a side yard setback since the street is 90 to it. Mattila responded the R-2 district requires a 15-foot setback from an R-1 district line. Livingston said a deck is considered part of the structure. Turbak said it is still too close. Brottlund stated the homes should be between $165,000 and $185,000 per unit and should not reduce the area property values. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1996\05-21-96.WPD 3