10-14-81 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council October 14> 1981 Mrs. Nardini introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 81-10-603 - ELIMINA7ING ANY FURTNER PLAT7ING CHARGES TO MR. FIOLZSCFIUH AND DECLARING THAT THE PFlRK CHARGES PER LOT BE CNARGED AS BUILDING PERMITS FlRE ISSUED The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Hanson. qyes (4) Nardini, Hanson, Forsberg, Scalze. Nayes (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution Appears in Resolution Book No. 7> Page 391. Rosauer Mr. Rosauer appeared before the Council requesting approval of the Property division of his property on LaBore Road. Mr. Rosauer indicated that Division he has complied with the recommendations of the Plann~ng Commission with regard to stra9ghtening out the property 1ine. The Planner stated that part of his report of September 30 is in error. The Planner pointed out that the piece of property to be divided would not have access. The Planner suggested that if the division is approved it should be contingent upon the back piece of property being legally conveyed to the property to the south. Mr. Rosauer commented that there is a 33 foot easement on the back of the property to LaBore Road. Mayor Hanson commented that if an additiorial 17 feet were to be dedicated for a road, that would be all that was necessary. Mr. Rosauer stated that at some point he would like to divide tPie front portion of the property, but a 2 foot variance would be needed at the building line. Mr. Forsberg an~ Mrs. Nardini stated that they wou1d not be in favor of granting this variance. The Planner stated that he would not recommend approval of the division unless it is combined. Mr. Hanson stated that even though fAr. Rosauer is related to the people to the south, he does not feel the City should compel him to combine his property with someone else's. Hanson commented that the City does not have to issue a building permit for Parcel A. Hanson a1so pointed out that there is an easement at the back of the property for road purposes. The Attorney stated that the City cannot demand that someone combine properties, but it could be made a condition of the approval of the property divisian. The Planner stated that the City's ordinance states that the City cannot create a lot that does not have frontage on a public street. The Planner stated that if the lot is divided as is it could be sold and the City would be in a bad position if the new owner came in for a building permit. Page -4-