Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 09/10/1992

Home

Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Beyer, Hardin, Peterson and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Hardin to direct City Staff to prepare an oak wilt suppression program for City Council's consideration in September, based upon the results of the then completed forestry plan. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Beyer, Hardin, Peterson and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Case ~e7: Request to Appeal Board of Adjustment Decision; case of Tim and Brenda Smith. Zoning Administrator Frolik cited that City Code states that any action of the Board of Adjustment may be appealed to the Council if notice of such an appeal is received by the Zoning Administrator within ten days of the final action. On May 23, 1991, Tim and Brenda Smith appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a variance to the minimum street frontage requirements. The request was denied. The Smith's approached City Council during Citizen Input on May 28, 1991. Without benefit of a written case in the agenda, Council affirmed the decision of the Board of Adjustment. The Smiths are requesting that Council waive the ten day appeal time frame and review the documented facts of their request for a variance. Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to waive the ten day appeal time frame relating to Tim and Brenda Smith's request for a variance based on the lack of documentation available for City Council review and consideration on May 28, 1991. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Beyer, Hardin, Peterson and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Mr. Jim Neilson, attorney for Tim and Brenda Smith, stated the property was a lot of record in 1977, and until 1979 the City Code did not specify that the requirement of 200 feet was to be the street frontage width. Mayor Gilbertson agreed that it was a lot of record prior to the time that 200 feet was specified as frontage width. City Attorney Goodrich also agreed with Mr. Neilson and advised City Council that the issue of park dedication requirements be delayed until such time that this parcel is platted. Mr. Neilson stated that Mr. and Mrs. Smith are willing to dedicate an easement for the extension of 171st Lane N.W. Councilmember Hardin expressed a concern regarding the extension of 171st Lane N.W. through both adjoining parcels belonging to the Smith's. Mr. Neilson consulted with Mr. and Mrs. Smith. They agreed to dedicate a road easement through both parcels. Motion by Councilmember Hardin and seconded by Mayor Gilbertson to adopt Resolution #92-07- 169 rescinding Findings of Fact #<)298 and adopting Findings of Fact g0316 in response to an appeal of the denial for a variance to street frontage requirements on P.I.N. 10-32-25-11-0001 amended as follows: Item #t0 shall state "That if granted, the variance will not be materially detrimental..."; and add proposed findings No. 12 through I5 as follows: #12. That the applicant has requested access to the subject property from the only location where street frontage is City Council/July 14, 1992 Page 6 of 11