Laserfiche WebLink
P~l I ~IUTt: S <br />City Council <br />t9ay 2£3, 1956 <br />Hazard ~ir. t3lesener introduced 'the follobainn resoluti~n and moved its adontion: <br />Property <br />Division RF.SOLUTIOM P10. t3S-5-20t3 - A~PROVTN6 TFIF <br />(Cont.) ~'ARI_ NA7_FlRD PROPE4TY DIVISIQN A$ SUf3~1ITTFD <br />SUBJEf,T TO COi~1Pl_IANC[: !;ITFI Th1~ R.F.COMt+IENDATIONS <br />OF TME CITY PLAh1~lER AS COPITAINF..f~ IN HIS APRIL <br />30, 1956 PE~ORT 11PID SUBJ~'CT TO I~NY UTILITY/ <br />f)`tAI~1FIGE ~AS£PqE~lTS ,45 DLTFRP1IMFD bi[CESS,4}~tY <br />I3Y 7NE CITY cPl6INEGR <br />The foreyoing resolution was dul.y seconc.ted by r~rs. Scalze. <br />/~yes (5) 312sener, Scalze, Collova, idardini, Fahe.y. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution dFClared adoptecl. <br />This resolution appears in Reso1ution E3ook ".lo. 15, Page ?_05. <br />Twin Lake Fahey opened the nublic hearing on 1;he oreliminary plat of the Twin <br />Shores 2.nd La~ce Shorrs 2nd Acidition. <br />llddition <br />Mr. Blaine Edmundson, representing i9ar~aret flitcheil and C'narles <br />Agenda P1itchell, appeareci before the Council requesting a~>proval of the <br />Iten hfo. 4 preliminary plat. Gdmundson also stated that the ~litchell's ;~ere <br />not in agreement v~ith the Ptanner's recomm2nc:ation of dadication <br />of adclitional road easement on the north side of their property. <br />Edmundson reported that P1rs. P1i'tcY~ell dedicated adclitionil easement <br />in this area previously so tha't "1r. Klidzejs, the propertyo~,dner <br />to the north, coulci access the back of his propert.y. <br />1=dmundson report2d that P1rs. "~titchell does not 4~aant or neecl a road <br />in this area and tias adeqi.aate frontage on Twin ~ake Road to <br />subdivide Lot 1 in the future if she so desired. Ediiiunc~son also <br />reported tYiat Niitchell was not in favor of bein9 assessecl for any <br />road improvernent on the north. <br />t.irs. Scalze felt that th~ City had to p1an for the fiature <br />development of the Mitchell property t>y providing the road <br />easer;ient at this time. <br />~,lardini pointetl out that the i~1itche1l property cons9sts of 35,000 <br />snuare feet and it would be poor planning not to require the road <br />easement at this time. <br />P1r. Fahey 4>ointed out t~~at the ;9itchell propert.y viould not be <br />assessed anything, if the road a~~ere never imr~roved. <br />hir. ~lesener incficated that the <<lidzejs property is developed to <br />ttie extent that it can. <br />The Planner indicated that i<lidzejs has access tn one lot from <br />Twin La!<e Road and ts=~o others from tnis road easement. <br />Page -3- <br />