Agenda - Council - 06/27/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a permit change similar to this. He has been before the Commission before to acquire a permit for another leased property for their church, and they cannot move forward until their property sells. With the special permits they have been applying and working with the City on, they would like to ask for the Commission's consideration to allow them to come up with another option for the development of the Stritesky property. The church did not even know about the cul-de-sac or the proposed road going through as a public street instead of a private road. He understands there may be some exemptions that could be done by the City on size, but the church would like to have the opportunity because they have not been involved and have not seen all the paperwork. Chairperson Nixt asked if the legal notice requirements were met with tkis application. Associate Planner Dalnes replied notification for the church went out to the property address of 14600 Nowthen Boulevard, which is the mailing address on file with the City. Mr. Wellman stated 14600 Nowthen Boulevard is the taxation mailing address; as a church they do not pay taxes. The correct address is listed for assessments paid by the church, and they did not receive any notification to that correct address. 14600 Nowthen Boulevard is not an operating office or business, and there is no reception of mail at that address. Ben Deemer, 14501 Sunfish Lake Boulevard NW, stated he has comments on both the plan and the zoning. First of all, on the property immediately to the north, the capacity of that property was reduced last year by 25% through denial of the variance. It is currently zoned R-2 for all 4 parcels, and single family detached units are not allowed, so rezoning is necessary for the proposed plat to exist. It looks to him like the proposal suggests a street that will pass through the lots to the north that will reduce the parcels north of there by 30% in area and reduce the adjacent parcel by V: in density due to the setbacks and everything else involved. This might be considered a taking for further action involving the street. Mr. Deemer stated the proposed street will create a safety hazard because southbound traffic on County Road #5 at night will have northbound headlights on Helium in a place it is not expected, which is a safety aspect. This is spot rezon/ng to allow detached single units that should not be honsidered unless the PUD reflects the entire parcels. Without conditions what it does to the remaining R-2 parcels may be rushing in favor of one parcel over the other three. The developer should have to own all the parcels before creating restrictions that will affect the others. The biggest restriction is the street that is proposed to go through those parcels taking 30% of the land. Derwood Sagwold stated he is the current owner of the two lots to the north of the subject property, with one of the lots being the narrow outlot. He stated he purchased this property in September last year; the previous owner asked for a variance to go back to the old ordinance and build 8 units, which the Commission rejected based on the square footage of the Iot being bnildable for 6 units. He purchased the lot from Ben Deemer based on that value of 6 units. Now this plan has been submitted with the street running through the middle of his land, and he would probably only get 3 units; this will reduce the value of his land by 50%. He feels the way this is being planned by the City is really -227-