05-13-81 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council May 13, 1981 Mr. Fahey stated that the next step would be fior the City Flttorney to meet with the necessary property owners to acquire r9ght-of-way. Poo1 Sicle The City C7erk reported ~hat Poo1 Side has requested the division Property of their property. The property is physically sp1it by County Road Division C. The ~roperty locatad tc the south of County Road C is presently zoned R-1 and the property located to the north of County Road C is zoned B-3. Mr. Fahey introduced the fol7owing resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 81-5-217 - APPROVI~lG THE PROPf.RTY DIVTSION QF P RCEL 53-00600-040-HO AS R[QUESTED BY POOL SIDE SO THFlT THE PORTtON OF .27 ACRES LOCFlTED SOUTH Of COUNTY ROAD C REMAIN ZONED R-1 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. Flyes (5) Fahey, Scalze> Hanson, Forsberg, Nardini. Nayes (0). Thiolution declared adopted. resolution appears in Resolution Qook No. 7, Page 145. Bill Stenger Mr. 6i11 Stenger appeared before the Council requesting the division of Property his property loc~ted on ~est County Road C. There are present1y two ~~vision office bui1dings and a mini-storage facility located on the property. Mr. Stenger stated that the division would benefit him by providing separate tax statements for each of the buildings. Mr. Forsberg asked about the setbacks on Park Street. The City P1anner replied that he believed the buildings were approved based on the possibility of the property being split. The Planner suggested that the City get a survey of the property before the division was approved. Councilman Fahey agreed that the City should have a complete p1an and survey of the property. In this way the City would be assured that setbacks would be met. Mr. Fahey suggested that Mre Stenger meet with the City Planner regarding this division. Richard Mr. Richard Demont has requested ap~rova7 of a lot size variance for Demont some property he owns on the corner ofi Ruth Street and proposed Lake Property Street. The property is short approximately 800 feet of ineeting the Division City's required 11,000 square footage far a corner 1ot. The City P1anner stated that the City had an alternative of adopting an ordinance amendment that permitssomeone to 6uild on a piece of property that met 90% of the City's requirements for area and wiclth as tong as setbacks were met. The Planner sta~ed that most cittes have this provision in their ordinances and it was just an oversight ~hat this was not 9ncluded in Little Canada's ortlinance. Page -8-