Laserfiche WebLink
Councilm~ber Cox stated that there should have been a resubdivision plan; <br />house placement ~ affects future subdivision. <br /> <br />Ms. Norris noted that there is a typographical error in the zoning <br />ordinance just ack. ed; it should require 80', not 200', lot widths on cul- <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that Council has seen numerous proposals from Mr. <br />Johnson in order to respond to city code and requirements. The present <br />plat being reviewed will render greater problems in the future than <br />accepting one ~f the earlier proposals which required waiving of some of <br />the city's requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Vagle then presented for Gouncil reconsideration, a previously proposed <br />plat for Autumn Msadows that contained 4 equal-in-size parcels that would <br />require variances from cul-de-sac length and second access. This plat <br />would also have a drainage pond, a 33' easement along the northern <br />boundary, a 66' easement fr~m the cul-de-sac end north to the 33' easement <br />and the developer is agreeable to no further subdivision until a second <br />access is provided. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember DeLuca and seconded by Councilmember COx denying <br />Mr. Ken Johnson's request for preliminary plat approval of Autumn Meadows <br />as presented on January 27, 1987 with 4 parcels ranging in size from 2.5 to <br />7.5 acres. Further, to grant preliminary plat approval to a previous <br />proposal for Autumn Meadows containing 4 parcels equal in size and to <br />include a 66 foot north/south easement, a 33 foot east/west easement along <br />the northern boundary, a drainage pond and a moratorium on further <br />subdivision until a second access is provided. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Mr. Goodrich inquired if Council is indicating they <br />will acoept a prelim/nary plat that is sukmitted with those features. Mr. <br />Raatikka noted that Council had reviewed the 4 equal paroel before and Mr. <br />Johnson does have all the engineering work done on all of the proposals. <br />Mr. Hartley inquired if Council is restricting Mr. Johnson to develop less <br />than the 4 lots. Mayor Reimann replied that one lot is developed; Mr. <br />Johnson will have 3 lots that can be developed. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmanbers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case 912-. Requ_ est For Sketch Plan Review Of Minor. Subdivision: Case Of <br /> Mr. Jack Bart_hold: <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that Mr. Barthold is requesting review of his sketch plan <br />for a minor subdivision of a five acre paroel located on the west side of <br />B~y. ~47. <br /> <br />Mr. Barthold stated that he originally requested a metes and bounds <br />subdivision but Planning and Zoning recommended going with a minor <br />subdivision platting prooess. Mr. Barthold stated that he can't afford a <br />minor subdivision just to' give the two paroels to his son and daughter. <br />Mr. Barthold also disagreed with Plannir~ and Zoning's rec(mlnendation for a <br />66' easenent north of the five acre paroel. <br /> <br />Page 16 of 26 <br /> <br /> <br />