Laserfiche WebLink
mm <br />H <br />rndale <br />ION/ <br />USE PERMIl , <br />Meeting ■ <br />8:35 P.M. <br />m <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 22, 1979 <br />Page 3 <br />4. The major opposition was the "duplex” concept <br />being brought into the zoning district. <br />5. The residents wanted to maintain the one-acre <br />single family residential use. <br />Hassel entered into the record a letter from <br />Thomas T. Hale, 110 Chase Drive, requesting <br />denial of the request: I-^ cause of the dangerous <br />precedent being set which would lead to additional <br />requests In other adjacent properties. One resident <br />also requested that the record note that Mr. and <br />Mrs. Curry, 111 Ghevy Chase Drive were out of town <br />but wanted to go on record as being opposed to the <br />proposal. Public Hearing Closed. Discussion <br />of the Planning Commission was mainly In considering <br />the effect of the draft of the Platting Code and • <br />the present ordinance on granting variance to <br />density or for granting duplexes. <br />Hassel moved that based on the fact that all areas <br />surrounding the subject property are used as single <br />family dwellings with no testimony that any of the <br />adjacent comnunltlet? allow duplexes or have any <br />duplexes or multiple units constructed In the adjacent <br />area of the property; although Section 37.015 would <br />seem to give authority to grant a variance; no classic <br />hardship seems to be shown, and In that, what Is being <br />asked for Is a change In density anvd duplex credit; <br />that the surrovmdlng municipalities do not give <br />evidence of having substantially different regulations <br />that effect the adjoining of property; that we are <br />Influenced by the draft of the Platting Ordinance <br />which Indicates that Planning Commission Is prohibited <br />from granting a variance to Increase density and, <br />although we recognize that It has not been passed, we <br />take It an an Indication of the feelings of the Council <br />of which we are merely an advisory body; therefore, <br />I move that the application be denied for these reasons. <br />Motion seconded by McDonald. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (1). <br />Motion passed. Wilson stated the reason for his Nay vote <br />was " I am In favor of the motion to the extent that we <br />not grant any duplex or attached dwelling, but I think <br />that there has been sufficient evidence to show that a <br />variance should be granted to the density to the extent <br />of eight units." <br />FRED HERFURTH <br />225 North Femdale <br />PRD/SUBDIVISION/ <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERM! <br />Public Info. Meeting <br />(#434) Cont.