Agenda - Council - 04/26/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I ~) I I I I I I I II' ....~ \ ::; I I I I I I I \1" I 2. The proposed variance to subdivision ordinance would result in Tract A as having no frontage onto a public street. I 3. Proposed Tract Band C would result in parcels less than 1 acre in size. 4. Similar request to subdivide by metes and bounds was refused at the March 22, 1983 Council Meeting. 5. Simil ar1y zoned property on Hwy. 10 has ~en denied metes and bounds subdivision. 6. Simil ar1y zoned property on Hwy 10 has been approved metes and bounds subdivision. Mr. Gilbertson inquired as to what property owners along Hwy. 10 are supposed to do, that they can hardly survive the taxes to say nothing of sewer and water. Commissioner Dunn replied that.financial gain or loss is.not a basis for gr~nting variances. Mr. Gilbertson stated that he is located on a State Aid road, that he has his own on-site sewer system and does his own plowing in the winter and the taxes are still Wqy out of sight. He further commented that Hwy. 10 is a dead issue, that the few surviving businesses.cannotcontinute to pay for the vacant buildings along Hwy. 10. My request would not hurt~theCity in any way, that he has done his best to make his property presentable, and that there are businesses along Hwy 10 that are an eyesore. Commissioner Zimmerman stated that the Commission is not against Mr. Gilbertson, that they are trying to create orderly development. Discussion ensued regarding proposed service road along Hwy. 10 that would service Mr. Gilbertson's property. Findings of Fact continued: 7. Proposed subdivision woul d resul t in Tracts wi. th frontage .1 ess than 200'. Motion by Commissioner Isakson and seconded by Commissioner Deemer to adopt findings of fact regarding Mr. James Gilbertson's request to subdivi.de by metes and bounds. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Dunn, Zimmerman, Deemer, Isakson and LaDue. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioper Schneider. Motion by Commissioner Dunn and seconded by Commissioner Isakson~o recommend denial based on the findings of fact of Mr. James Gilbertson's request to subdivide by metes and bounds. Further Discussion: Commissioner Dunn stated that if Mr. Gilbertson would subdivide into two parcels, the acreage required would be adequate but Mr. Gilbertson would still need a variance to. frontage requirement. Mr. Gilbertson replied that there would still be two separate businesses on parcel. Commissioner P & ZjApri1 5, 1983 Page 3 of 7 / /