Laserfiche WebLink
CASE #3: <br /> <br />CASE #4: <br /> <br />CASE #5: <br /> <br />CASE #6: <br /> <br />City Administrator's Comments: The Planning Commlss[on is soley <br />responsible for the screening requirements as set forth in Section <br />170.014H of the City Code. The City Engineer's reports dated <br />March 26, 1979, paragraph 2 does specifically address this issue. <br />Consequently, I would recommend that we have a comprehensive <br />development contract on this project so we can keep a control on <br />the development that will be within this development. <br /> <br />SUBDIVISION OF LAND; CASE OF ARTHUR ANDERSON: <br /> <br />Background: The following is submitted for your review on the <br />subject request: <br /> <br />a. Mr. Anderson gave the City .030 acres of land for the extension <br />of 171st Avenue N.W. over to Bison Street N.W. In view of ~his the <br />Council informed him to proceed to the Planning Commissiq~to sub- <br />divide the balance of land into two lots. <br />b. Enclosure (Dl-c) sketch plan. <br /> <br />SKETCH PLAN FOR SUBIDIVISION; CASE OF VERA McGREGOR: <br /> <br />Mrs. McGregor will be in for sketch plan review to subdivide her <br />commercial property where here restaurant is located. <br /> <br />ZONING/SUBDIVISION OF LAND VIOLATION; CASE OF SHERWIN SCHENK: <br /> <br />Problem: Mr. Schenk has a used car lot located at his homestead <br />and it is my understanding he sold off one acre or more of land to <br />the party who operates this use car lot. Consequently, he is in <br />violation of our subdivision of land code. Further the City has <br />not issued a license for a used car lot at that address. <br /> <br />Mr. Schenk will be in to discuss this violation of the City Code. <br /> <br />BUILDING OF HOUSE ON LANDLOCKED PARCEL OF LAND; CASE 0F WALTER <br /> <br />KNAOKSTEDT: <br /> <br />Problem: The above party wants to build a house on a parcel of <br />].and which does not front a public street. He wants to use his <br />neighbors driveway as an egress and ingress to his proposed resi- <br />dence. This would be in violation of Sections 170.013D(1) and <br />170.038C(10) of the City Code. The following enclosures are sub- <br />mitted for your review and assistance in reviewing this request: <br /> <br />a. Enclosure (Dl-d) proposed residential site. <br />bo Enclosure (Dl-e) excerpts of City Code Sections 170.013D(1) <br />and 170.058C(10). <br /> <br />This party will need a variance from the zoning and subdivision <br />code. <br /> <br /> <br />