Agenda - Council - 05/24/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion by Commissioner Schneider to approve the findings of fact with the addition of the following: 7) Proposed easement to property does traverse the floodway of Trott Brook. 8) City records do not indicate that Parcel ~6000 and ~5400 are in separate ownership, therefore the need for a variance has not been established. 9) That the applicant would be utilizing a 1326 foot easement to obtain access to his property and this could hinder fire and police protection to that property. Commissioner Deemer seconds the motion for further discussion. .") Further Discussion: None. Motion carried.~ Voting Yes: Chairman Paterson, Commissioners Dunn, Zimmerman, Deemer, LaDue, Isakson and Schneider. Voting No: None. Motion by Commissioner schneider and seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to deny Mr. Harold Phelps' request for variance from t?~e subdivision ordinance, Section 170.0314B, based on the findings of fact. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Paterson, Commissioners Dunn, zimmermen, Deemer, LaDue and Sc,hneider. Voting No: Commissioner Isakson. Chai~m~ Paterson' informed Mr. Phelps that '~he motion to deny is not final, that it is a recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Deemer stated that Mr. Phelps should be provided with a copy of ~he findings o.f fact. F~. Phelps ~nguired if a condition of the variance approval couldn't be the stipulation that ~ne s-object 30 acres %rill not be f-archer develcped. Commissioner Deemer stated~hat if u~. ~hel~s cained control of the easement and the City were guaranteed that it would he a private driveway or if access could be gained from some other public street, he might reconsider approving p~. Phelps' reqplest- Commissioner Schneider commented that u-. Phelps could research 'the possiblity · to of obtain access to his prope-~-t~Y r~._ough Lot 8 of ~he cul-de-sac adjacent his prope~y, and that Mr. Phelps should have all property o%~ers concerned at ~ne Council ~eetLng and ~erha~s ~ne request would be approved and he would not have to come back to ? & Z. Co?~r~ssioner Zq-~e-'-r~n stated that ~e o%~er of the ~0 acres to the no~h of ~ne subject 30 acres should come into the City with e p!~n for development . . . · · o~ner is selling land and ~nen a road could he ~-'~"~= =~- Tnls ~ro~erty an~ investing nothing and no---~,al!y, this is not the way sub_.~_slo 'of l~nd operates. -) Case .~2: Thurstcn Avenue · C=~y of F_-. Peter Raati]~ka stated that he has met %-itln Bcb Jo:'-~-son of the "~ ~_~.oke recarding e:'-~-ending ?nurston Avenue to the .Rm_?3ey cc_--porate ' ~-nd beyond. p & Z/j~_~.ua_-y 4t !983 Page 4 of 5 ?!