Laserfiche WebLink
P1I NUTES <br />City Council <br />July 22, 1987 <br />Art Ryan <br />Property <br />Division <br />Agenda <br />Item No. 8 <br />Mr. Art Ryan appeared before the Council requesting approval of the <br />division of a portion of Lot 4, Block 4 in Ryan Industrial Park and <br />the annexation of this piece of property to Lot 5, Block 5. Ryan <br />felt that the property division would give the property better access <br />to the back portion of Lot 5. <br />P1r. alesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 87-7-329 - APPROVING THE ART <br />RYAN lOT SPLIT AS PRESENTED ON PAGE 27 OF <br />COUNCIL AGENDAS <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Blesener, Scalze, Collova, LaValle, Fahey. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 18, Page 356. <br />Cocchiarella/ Plessrs. Cocchiarella and Lepsche appeared before the Council requesting <br />Lepsche approval of the division of 40 feet of Mr. Lepsche's shoreline lot into <br />Lot Split two 20 foot pieces so that Lepsche could sell one lot to Mr. Cocchiarella. <br />Agenc;a Fahey outlined the Planning Commission recommendation that the matter <br />item No. 9 be handled by a private easement between the two parties, noting <br />the Planner's recommendation to deny the lot split in view of the <br />DNR's discouraging approval. <br />Scalze pointed out that there are a number of 40 foot parcels on the <br />lake and if the Council allowed this lot split, it would set a precedent <br />and could not deny other similar splits. <br />Cocchiarella did not feel the City would get similar requests and <br />noted that he was to receive lake rights when he purchased his <br />property, but due to an error, did not. <br />Fahey asked if the DNR had the authority to deny the variance request. <br />The Planner replied that the DNR could require review of the request, <br />and pointed out that the lot is currently non-conforming and the <br />request would make the non-conformity greater. The Planner noted <br />that the minimum width on a lake is 100 feet. <br />Fahey noted that the City has to apply the same standards in this <br />variance request as it does in all others and that a hardship must <br />exist. Fahey noted that the City has denied other variance <br />requests in the past where the non-conformity was not nearly as <br />great as this one. Fahey noted that the City has adopted a Shoreland <br />Ordinance which requires lake lots to be 15,000 square feet in size. <br />Page -11- <br />