Agenda - Council - 10/10/1978 - Continuation of the 09/25/78 CC Mtg.

Home

FINDING OF FACT AND MOTION re: Tom Holker Variance Request 1. That the applicant appeared before the planning and zoning commission on May 1, 1978, to request a variance to subdivide the following described property: The West 60 acres of the East half of the NE¼ of Section 3, Township 32, Range 25 Anoka County, Mn. EXCEPT the east 658.05 feet of the west 60 acres of said east ½ of the NE¼. into a 7.5 acre parcel and a 12.5 acre parcel. 2. The Planning and Zoning commission reccommended permission for the proposed subdivision contigent on payment of the appropriate park fee. The Planning & Zoning commission presented the City-Council With~_no reasons or findings as to why the subdivision was permitted. 3. On May 8, 1978 the City Council denied the subdivision "because of the long driveway (required' for the back parcel) and the need for adequate. fire protection for the house (on the back parcel) if it is built." 4. On September 25, 1978 the applicant appeared with his attorney requesting the City Council to reconsider its May 8, 1978 action. Applicants attorney also sent a letter ot the City Attorney outlining his clients position in the matter. That letter is dated September 20, 1978, and was read to the City Council and is a part of the City's file. 5. That to frant the subdivision~variance as requested would then-require either a private driveway or a public roadway for access~purposes:tolthe'- back parcel in excess of 1000 ft.. 6. The City's ordinances do not permit a building permit to be issued unless the subject property fronts on a public street. The Council finds that the reason for this requirement is to insure that every residence in the City is accessible to essential public services such as police and fire protection. The Council finds that a 1000 ft private driveway does not provide adequate assurance of good and adequate access to dwelling~ 7. If a public roadway were constructed instead of a private driveway in order to provide access to the back parcel, this public roadway would also have to be in excess of 1000 ft with the use of a cul de sac. The Council finds that a new roadway would only service one residence with the prospect of the roadway connecting with another roadway in the future very minimal. 8. The Council finds that to accept a 1000 ft roadway as a city street with the resultant requirement of maintenance, which 1000 ft roadway will service only one residence, and which roadway will probably never hookup with another in the future, 'is not in the economic best interests of the City and such an action would adversely affect the City's health and welfare.