06-23-82 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTI3S CzCy Council June 7_3, 19fl2 [Croiss Mr. Kroiss indicated to Che Council. that: he and hi.s wi.fe woul.d lilce (Cont.) to build on the proposed Lot 4. Y.roiss also said that he was tryinf; to conform the pLat to the exi.sti.ng bloclc wall on the property. Mr. Kroiss i.nfor.med the Council that Lot 4 caould consist oL nearly an acre, buC does not have ~he necessary 75 EeeC of r.oad frontage. Mr. Kroi.ss stated that thi.s could be acomplished, but he wouid have to r.emove some trees to do so and he caould rather not. Kroiss stated that he wouLd hope the Counc~il p,ave consideration to the fact that this 1ot would be almost an acre :i.n size. Mr. Pahey sta[ed t:hat he did not see the problem with the front footage on Lot 4. Pahey commented that the problem is that there is not enough land and he was not preparecl to grant any vari.ance where :it i.s just a matter of. r.elocaCi.ng a lot line. Pahey inf.ormed iKr.. Kroi.ss that the C~i.ty counci.l has deni.ed vari.ances i.n the past for similar si.tuat:i.ons. Faliey indicat:ed that the City's ordi.nance cloes noC call iC a hardshi.p ~ahen i.t i.s just a matter of: relocaCinn lot lines. Mr. Porsber~; i.ndicated that he was noC in favor oL gr.anting a vari.ance as he di.d not see a hardship. Mrs. Scalze i.ndi.cated that the City turned down a similar. request on Viking Drive for a vari.ance. Pahey incLicated thaC the Council i.s not incl:i.ned to gr.ant spec:iai f.avors to peopl.e, i~lr. i<roi.ss indi.cated that there ~oould be the problem oE cluel maintenance on the wall. Mrs. Scalze commented that there already i.s a problem of. duel ownership the ~aay Mr. Kroiss is submi_tti.ng the plat. Mrs. Nar.dini asked iL Mr.. lCroi.ss could propose 75 feet of f.rontage f:or Lot 4 and then narrow i.t baclc. The Planner stated that thi.s could be done. Mr. I'ahey asked that assuming Mr. Kroiss wou1~1 move the loC 1i.ne on L,ot 4 and assuming thaC Che Council di.d not Lilce the development, would the Counci.l have a basi.s f:or denyi.ng the request because it di.d not 1i.ke the eff.ect of. the development on the neighbor.hood. Mr. Don Laclcner of 2373 Edgerton appeared bef.ore the Counci.l.. Mr. Ladcner i.ndicated that the residents of: the ar.ea have lived in this area £or 7_0 years and bought thezr property on l'he basi.s of what they saw. Mr. Laclmer commented that this proposal is just a proposal loolcin~; £or places £or. houses rather than Loolci.ng at the neig,hUor.hooct. Mr.. Lackner aslced how a house couLd be pl.aced on the pr.oposed Lot 1 due to the way i.t drops of.f. Mr. Iti.l.l. of. 2359 Fdp,erton appearect beLore the Counci.l. P1r. H:ill i.ndi.cated that h:is house caould be directly acr.oss .f.rom the proposed Lot 2. T~fr. llill indicated tha[ he pr.esently has a view of. the lalce and Mr. H:il.l. f.elt that tliat v~iew was worth some money< Mr. Hill was aiso concerned about: the number of: addi.t:ional drive~aays. Hill i.nf.ormed the Counci.l that there c rrently is a congcsted iraff.a.c si.tuati.on in the area and w~s concerne~ about Page -2-