03-18-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mattila said he did not know where the 27-foot measurement came from, but there is a 30' setback requirement. Mattila said he did not know how it came up to be 27 feet. It seems that, if it is 27 feet, there may have been an error by the contractor. Livingston commented that some years back the Planning Commission granted a setback variance because they wanted the houses to line up. That may be how the 27-foot setback came about. Mattila said this house was not brought before the Planning Commission and the City Council. If the house was built with a 27-foot setback, there was probably an error by the contractor. Baker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak at this public hearing. PH. Motion by Livingston, seconded by O’Brien, 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. Schiferl said he felt the variance was unnecessary. Schiferl suggested that the City consider making a new district for such undersized lots. Schiferl asked how many more potential situations exist. Mattila said there have been four lot width variances adopted in the eleven years he had been the City Planner. There really is no need for a new zoning district. The Long Lake area is mostly built up and New Brighton is almost totally developed. There may be and occasional situation where a property owner would ask for a lot split and variance. However, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to look at each request to determine if the request would warrant a variance. Zisla asked if lot 9 and lot 10 are owned by the current owner. Lot 10 is an unbuildable lot. Mattila pointed out the current lot area. Zisla said he was looking for the unique circumstance. Zisla said that circumstance is that lot 10 is undersized because the Zoning Ordinance has changed the lot width requirements since that lot was laid out. That would be the unique circumstance. Baker said that a variance request must prove a hardship. In this case, strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant an undue hardship and deny the applicant a reasonable use of the property. VN-310-232, Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AND PL WITH $750. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion THE ADDITION OFLANGUAGE REQUIRING A PARK DEDICATION FEE Carried. R-141/LP-315 Silver Oak Development Mattila outlined the case report concerning a request for a rezoning of certain property from R-1, Single Family Residential to R-3B, Multiple Family Residential, and consider a site plan for 32 townhouse units. Mattila showed slides of the site. O’Brien asked if Mattila and the applicant discussed the slope of the driveways and the amount of fill needed on site. A good part of the site needs from four to seven feet of fill. Some driveways, from an access standpoint, appear rather steep. Mattila responded he had not discussed this with the applicant. Typically, the City Engineer reviews the grading plan. The Rice Creek Watershed District also looks at the drainage. Baker asked how many units would be allowed here under the R-2 PRD. Mattila responded that under an R-1 PRD there would be 22 units, in an R-2 District PRD there would be 37 units. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\03-18-97.WPD