01/04/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

in size and 500 feet in width does not require City Approval, and consequently the City is not entitled tn park dedication on subdivisions it has no authority over. 2) If the City were entitled to park dextication, the Par~ and Utilities Coordinator recommended the acquisition of property for the continuance of the trai2 in a e~:t west direction along the north si. de of the County ditch and trail right-of-way parallel to Hwy. ~nl:7, which is estimated at approximately 9 ac~s. 3) The intent of the minimum lot width requirement of 200 feet of street frontage is to provide safe and orderly access to the parcel, especi~y in emergency conditions. The City Attorney advised that meeting the minimum lot width requirement at a public mad oth~ than that which is proposed to provide access to the property does not meet the intent of the ordinance, and that in order to construct a dwelling on a tot that does not meet that intent should be reviewed by the City in the form of a variance. Ms. Frolik stated that the Parks and Utilities Coordinator discussed with Marshall Williams the possibility of contributing park dedication at this me with the advantage being that he would no longer have to pay taxes on that property. Also, it would be a selling point to have park dedication already addressed when Mr. Williams decides to subdivide or sell the property. The Board reviewed approvals and denials of similar requests. Chairperson Hendriksen requested that the Board &termine the definition of II~'parceI. Jerry Green of Edma Realty, representing Ms. Williams, desaribed the e×isting pm'eel. Board Member Deemer stated the parcel should be viewed as under contiguous ownersl'fip, which would include all 1 l0 acres of Mr. Williams' land. Ms. Frotik explained that Mr. Williams' property consists of three PINs, and each PIN is entitled to a building permit. She stated that to address just the variance, the parcel of re. cord that applies is shaded on page 8 of thc agenda. Board Member Deemer stated that parcel has access onto Highway g47 and there is no hardship. The Board proceeded to review the findings of fact.. Motion by Board Member Deemer to modify #2 to read "That the subject property is zoned R-1 Rural Residential and is approximately l lO acres in size." The motion died for lack of a second. The Board was still in disagreement as to whether the subject property is described bY the PIN or by the parcel under contiguous ownership, therefore it was the consensus to deal with it as described in the legal description provided in the proposed resolution. Motion by Chairperson Hendriksen and seconded by Board Member Deemer to amend #2 to read '"That the subject property identified as PIN 14--32-25-13.-0003 is zoned R-1 Rural Residential and is approximately 35 acres in size." Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chaff-person Hendriksen, Board Members Deemer, Bawden, Holland, La.Due, Terry, and Thorud. Voting No: None. Motion by Chaff"person Hendriksen and seconded by Board Member Ten? to add #2A to read "That the subject property is pan of an mca of approximately 115 acres under single ownership of the applicant" Board of Adjustment/September 7, 1993 Page :2 of 7 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I