Laserfiche WebLink
MzNU•rrs <br />Ci.ty Council <br />June 23, 1982 <br />Kroiss bui.ldin~ plans for Lot 1 should be approved by the Council. and <br />Plat (ConC.) passed by the Ci.ty Engineer. <br />D1r. Laclcner. i.ndicaY.ed to Che Council that developers come and go~ buC <br />i.t is the people wk~o must live w:i.th the situat:i.on. Mr. Lactcner <br />i.ndicatecl that the north property line of. Lot 1. abutts the beach <br />property. i,aclcner. aslced the Council to talce inCO consideration <br />that they are here toni.ght represe.nti.ng the enCire ne.i,n,hborhood. <br />P1r. AnChone aslced how many people were involved wiCh the subdivision< <br />Mr. Kr.oi.ss indicated that he was the sole owner oL the properCy. <br />Mr.. Anthorie i.nd:i.cate<t to the Counci.l that due Co the developmenT. of <br />Di.anna I.,ane he can no longer back out of his ctri.veway. Anthone was <br />concerned abou[ Che effecC four more driveways woutd have on the <br />area. <br />Mr. Hanson replied that the City has addressed these concerns to t:he <br />County Board and have asl<ed f.or a reduced speed limit on Edgerton. <br />However, the iioard has rejecCed the City's concerns. The City has no <br />jur.isdi.ction over a County road. <br />Mr. Hill indi.cated that the neighbors d.i.d not see this properCy was <br />for sal.e. To their lrnowledge it was never on the market. <br />P1r. ftanson replied that the Council has nothing to do with that. <br />Mr. Forsberg stated that except for the variance, everythi.ng else <br />about the pl.at meets City Code. Por.sberg sr.ated that i.f. the plat <br />met Ci.ty Code he would not turn it down. Porsberg felt that there <br />caas only so much the Council couLd do. <br />Mrs. Scalz.e indi.cated to the audience that the Kroiss property is the <br />only lary;e pi.ece of property left in the area. <br />Mr. Lackner replied Chat there are some pr.opert.i.es with better than <br />an acre. <br />Mr. Pahey aslced i.f the nei.ghborhood ~aould be opposed to the development <br />if I,ots 2 and 3 were combined. Mr. Lacl<ner repli.ed that it was Lot <br />2 T.hat ~oas what Uothered him. <br />Mr. Kroi.ss stated that the lots ~vould meeC code and he would give the <br />people buyi.ng Lot 3 t_he option to purchase Lot 2. <br />Mr. Pahey indicated that the nei~;hbors feel that t:he wa11 as a natural <br />boundar.y shoulct remain. <br />Mr. Kroi.ss S.ndicated that he is proposi.ng a si.ngle £ami.ly, one-story <br />home for Lot 2. <br />Mrs. Scalze indi.cated that she feLt it would be a nice subdivis~ion if <br />l.ots 2 ancl 3 were combined. <br />Page -5- <br />