Laserfiche WebLink
minor platting process. <br /> <br />Councilm~mber Cox stated that he wasn' t on City Council at the time and <br />does not know the reason for not requiring minor platting. Council's <br />action at this time is based on ordinances. <br /> <br />Mr. Barthold stated that if he plats the remainder of his property in the <br />future, he will include these two parcels in the plat. Mr. Barthold stated <br />that he feels that requiring him to build a road in order to give away two <br />parcels of property is a hardship and that the City is imposing forced <br />develolm~ent of the remainder of his property. Mr. Barthold stated that it <br />would be an undue expense for the City to maintain 1 600' road that goes <br />nowhere. The rear parcel would receive an easement to share the existing <br />driveway to access Hwy. #47. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson stated he is in favor of granting a variance for a <br />metes and bounds subdivision provided a road easement is provided for <br />future development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that the rear parcel would not have frontage on a <br />municipal road and hardship must be proven in order to grant metes and <br />bounds subdivisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that a hardship is defined as unique circumstances <br />having to with the land such as oonfiguration, topography, wet areas and <br />landlocking; hardship must be determined on physical and not economic <br />considerations. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmsmber Pearson to vacate Council action of January 27, <br />1987 and to allow Mr. Jake Barthold a variance to subdivide the subject <br />parcel by ~etes and bounds based on the fact that he has certain economic <br />hardships whereby it is difficult to construct a required city road and <br />that upon future sales, the property will then have to be platted in <br />accordance with the City subdivision regulations. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann called for a second to the motion 3 times. <br /> <br />Motion failed for lack of a second. <br /> <br />~fer to Item (d) under Mayor And Council Input for further action. <br /> <br />Case ~14.. Requ_ est For Concept Review Of Planned Unit Devel _o~m~n.t <br /> Proposal: Case Of Mr. Art Raudio: <br /> <br />Mr. Raudio was present for concept review of his proposal for a planned <br />unit develot~ent for a residential develol~et with home occupations. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann expressed concern that mixing residential and business would <br />increase the amount of nuisance complaints and who would be responsible for <br />policing the area for compliance with the covenants. Mayor Reimann stated <br />that if Mr. }{audio decides to proceed with the P.U.D., he should seek <br />professional assistance in preparing a covenants that would address those <br />problem areas. <br /> <br />Page 14 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />