10-17-00 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 17, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes - Page 3 WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE Motion by O’Brien, seconded by Schiferl, to RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SP00-1 AND LP00-10, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.LANDSCAPING/GREEN AREA BE PROVIDED AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN DATED 10/12/2000. STAFF SHALL INSPECT THE SITE FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTINGS BY THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT ALL PLANTINGS SHOWN ARE IN PLACE. TH 2.AN ADDITIONAL SPRUCE TREE SHALL BE PLANTED ALONG 9 AVENUE BOULEVARD TO FILL IN AN OPEN SPOT ON THE NORTH EAST SIDE OF THE SECOND ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried. Teague presented a minor subdivision and lot width variance request to divide an existing lot at 1654 Valerie Ln. into two lots. The proposed lot widths would be 65.71 and 72.26 and do not meet the 75 ft. minimum lot width. Applicants, Orville and Evelyn Holmbo, intend to sell the vacant portion for future home construction. Staff has some concerns due to the elevation of the property. It would be in the City’s best interest to deny the plan, unless it can demonstrate the new home would not negatively impact adjacent properties. In addition, the applicant never paid assessments for the two lots towards road improvements or utilities. Also, there are no stub connections for sewer and water for a second home. A precedent was set for granting similar lot width variances, however, the Council did previously deny a lot width variance in this neighborhood. However, in that case the property did not have direct access to a public street, and the width was narrower than this proposed lot. However, they are similar in the fact no assessments were paid to assume future creation of an additional lot. Orville Holmbo feels the request should be approved being the lots meet the size requirement, however, he did admit the lots were never legally subdivided. ? asked the future location of the new lot’s driveway. Teague said no building plans have been submitted for the new home and the Code does not require a grading plan at the time of the subdivision request. Jim Lindgren, 1665 Roxanna Lane, feels the subdivision could create problems with on-street parking. Bob Kinney, 2933 Valerie Lane, said a petition has been circulated throughout the neighborhood, and noted issues with the location of the fire hydrant, additional traffic, substandard lot, and size of the home being out of character with the neighborhood. Baker noted that the existing home would only have 30 ft. of curb space in the front which creates an inferior street access. O’Brien tends to agree with the homeowners’ statement that the home was placed on the northern most portion of the site for possible subdivision. If it were subdivided, the existing and future driveways could be reconfigured to allow for additional curbing area. He would be inclined to see this proposal continue if changes were made. Schmitz agreed that the large size of the parcel would allow for reconfiguration. Schmitz feels there is potential to allow continuation of this proposal, but had some concerns of a two story home which could tower over the existing homes. However, the parking concerns raised would not affect his decision. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\2000\10-17-00.WPD 3