Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 23, 2003 <br />Krengel indicated that the hardship is the existing conditions that are being <br />dealt with. Krengel also pointed out an abandoned well location on the <br />property noting requirements to maintain minimum distances from the <br />well. <br />Fahey pointed out that the plat being proposed consists of seven single- <br />family lots. He pointed out that another alternative would be to decrease <br />the number of lots to six. Fahey commented that it is not up to the <br />Council to waive the ordinance requirements when there is no hardship <br />present. <br />Krengel asked the purpose of the radial requirement. <br />The City Planner responded that this requirement ensures that the <br />buildable area of a lot is maintained. The requirement applies to lots along <br />curves in roads as well as on cul-de-sacs, and helps to maintain uniform <br />buildable area within lots. The Planner pointed out that the problem with <br />the plat as proposed is that the cul-de-sac is in the wrong place. Moving <br />the cul-de-sac further to the west will resolve the problems that have been <br />identified and still allow for aseven-lot subdivision. <br />There was no one else from the general public present wishing to <br />comment on this matter. <br />Fahey noted that the Council received a letter from the property owner to <br />the west relative to his desire to have access to the proposed cul-de-sac. <br />Fahey indicated that the Council sought the input of this property owner to <br />determine if he was interested in participating in the development in order <br />to divide a lot from the back of his property. However, it appears that the <br />property owner and the developer were not able to agree to terms. <br />LaValle asked the developer's concern with moving the cul-de-sac further <br />west. <br />Krengel pointed out that when the first plan was submitted, the City <br />Engineer expressed concern with the curve in the road. Therefore, the <br />revised plan softens that curve. He also noted that the revised plan <br />maintains the appropriate setback from the abandoned well. <br />The City Planner indicated that he discussed these issues with the City <br />Engineer and it was his feeling that the curve of the road did not change <br />that much and that adequate setbacks from the well were maintained in <br />both plans. The Planner indicated, therefore, that the revised plan did not <br />change much relative to these two issues mentioned by Mr. Krengel. The <br />