Agenda - Council - 08/13/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hendriksen suggested language be added to indicate 'not elig-ible for future developmen~i >:~e, Council agTeed with that revision. Councilrnember Kurak stated she understood it refer-edt6: : wetlands, rivers, lakes, and permanent obstructions that could never be built on. Ci;~i}AttorneY~'~II'I!? Goodrich stated that is correct and the added lang-uage assures thit is the case. The Council ac-reed to amend ,4a'nendment A, Section 9.20.05, Subdivis~o~i3;~ a,. 3, to~':i~9~de Municipal State Aid Roads and Amendment A, Section 9.20.05, SubdiviSi'6~::i}~< a, 4, to add'~< eh~ble for future development .... ,:.:'::_ Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Council ~;rs ':Xi~k, Anderson, and Hendriksen. Voting No: Councilmember Zimrnerman. .A~::!.~? ' , Councilmember Zimmerman stated he voted no beca~5:~i!s not a de~}~:?ans~t~on ordinance . ' ordinance He noted that on County ,Rbii{~lll'6 a berm ~;a~io'~e included for the people but it was taken down so it was not permanent. He stat~b~ ~'9es'not Q/ink tins ommance will do the job with density transition. '~ i'7}i}'i}5}i~'7;~''~:~ ~ .... ~:;~, Councilmember Hendriksen stated he .sees it as a half or third of ~'~iitiS~ but~} s better than nothing and he hopes the Council 0: 0o8 a t~e deasity transition~iSi~de at some point in the future. ..:5~ Case #8: Request for an Appeal'~t~:~the Boai~:l'"~f Decision Relating to a Request for a Variance fr~0}}n 1M;i~i~;{~m Lolz s~e in the R-1 District; Case of RobertLon~eld :'~ :':: pri,nmcipat pla~r<':Trudge~)~5'~xplained that B~'~Y ,Lofi~eld resides on a 10 acre parcel at 5751 ::~ :'"~ In Ma~;~'2009 the a li;~t:::~:~uested a variance to the 4 in 40 density 177 Avenue I'¢W. - X.;'7 -, PP ..::~,,,:,:~ q restricti~ and minimum lot StZe of 10 acres...lS, a~r the =ew zoning or&nance treat tootc effect on July ~]~;; 5002i'.Mr. Longfiet&S,t~d :i.S nojd~r restricted by the 4 in 40 density restriction and the lot Size mifiimumzf~:~-S~pr6~'::i~}:]~ered't° 2.5 acres. Since the 'appli-cant is proposing to subdivide his ]i°{itisCreate a new 2.06 acre lot and keel~ a 7.94 acre lot for his homestead, he ~,,?!':/!~'::need a varian~:~t~ the m!nimum lot size ~n the R-1 Zomng D~stnct...The .Boar.¢9%f ,¥~:::i.5 '?-Xc~j~i-~m. has previo~it~grant~ variances to minimum lot size. Most recently, m May IV , John G°¢ernatz was gran;red':a' variance to create several 2.5 acre parcels (At the time, the minimum ld~i-glZe was 1.0~iidr~s).~. The Gobernatz parcels are located across the street from Mr. Longfield's p~{1. In order to ~ant a variance, there rnnst be a determination that there is some physical uniqu~rr~ss about the property that is ca. using tine applicant a hardship and a reasonable use of the prop~. The applicant states that there are t~o reasons why the variance to lot size is '~ ':~!i%::,needed; 1) the:~¢Cation of the existing house makes it difficult to create a 2.5 acre lot; and 2) that ':'~°=e-half ot':~: acre of the applicant's land was dedica_ted as fight-of-way as part of the Echo RS-'~dgeE~tates platting done in 1991. Staff has looked at the parcel and determined that while it rnaySg difficult.· it is not impossible to create a 2.5 acre lot. A lot could be created that would be 2:5:aCres in size and meet all applicable setbacks. However, the lot would be irregularly shaped. City Council/July 23,2002 Page 21 of 30 -252-