Laserfiche WebLink
2. The proposed variance to subdivision ordinance would result in <br /> Tract A as having no frontage onto a public street. , <br /> <br />3. Proposed Tract B and C would result in parcels less than I acre in <br /> size. <br /> <br />4. Similar request to subdivide by metes and bounds was refused at the <br /> March 22, 1983 Council Meeting. <br /> <br />5. Similarly zoned property on Hwy. 10 has been denied metes and bounds <br /> subdivision. <br /> <br />6. Similarly zoned property on Hwy 10 has been approved metes and bounds <br /> subdivision. <br /> <br />Mr. Gilbertson inquired as to what property owners along Hwy. 10 are supposed <br />to do, that they can hardly survive the taxes to say nothing of sewer and <br />water. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dunn replied that financial gain or loss is not. a basis for <br />granting variances. <br /> <br />Mr. Gilbertson stated that he is located on a State Aid road, that he has <br />his own on-site sewer system and does his own plowing in the winter and the <br />taxes are still w~y out of sight. He further commented that Hwy. 10 is a <br />dead issue, that the few surviving businesses~cannot continute to pay for <br />th6 vacant buildings along Hwy. 10. My request would not hurt_the City in <br />any way, that he has done his best to make his property presentable, and <br />that there are businesses along Hwy 10 that are an eyesore. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman stated that the Commission is not against Mr. Gilbertson, <br />that they are trying to create orderly development. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding proposed service road along Hwy. 10 that would <br />service Mr. Gilbertson's property. _ <br /> <br />Findings of Fact continued: <br /> <br />7. Proposed subdivision would result ~n Tracts with frontage less than <br /> 200' <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Isakson and seconded by'Commissioner Deemer to adopt <br />findings of fact regarding Mr. James Gilbertsonts request to subdivide.by <br />metes and bounds. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Dunn, Zimmerman, <br />Deemer, Isakson and LaDue. Voting No.: None. Absent: Commissioner Schneider. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Dunn and seconded by Commissioner Isakson to recommend <br />denial based on the findings of fact of Mr. James Gilbertson's request to <br />subdivide by metes and bounds. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner Dunn stated that if Mr. Gilbertson would <br />subdivide into two parcels, the acreage required would be adequate but Mr. <br />Gilbertson would still need a variance to. frontage requirement. Mr. Gilbertson <br />replied that there would still be two separate businesses on parcel. Commissioner <br /> <br />P & Z/April 5, 1983 <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />