01-27-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIPJUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Gar•dner~ Br~os. Lee r~eplied that he was r~equir•ed to pur~chase the 60 foot easement for• Lot Split the Slumber~land development due to the State Fir~e code. (Cont.) Lee pointed out that it will take about 6 weeks just to do the engineer•ing on the site he pr•oposes to buy fr~om Gar•dner• Br•os. Lee questioned why he had to have this all done befor~e he could get a lot split appr•oved. Fahey felt that since the City now has the Engineer•'s r•epor•t stating that the pr~operty is buildable, the lot split is a r~outine matter•. The Engineer• pointed out that he has indicated that soil bor•ings should be done on the site. Lee r•eplied that he would have to have soil bor•ings in any event for~ mortgage purposes. The Planner• noted that the Planning Commission was also concer•ned about the amount of ponding that will be necessar•y on the site and whether• or~ not var~iances will be r~equested by the developer•. However~, the Planner• stated that the City Engineer~'s r•epor•t addresses these concer•ns. Collova questioned whether• it was the City's place to r•equir•e the developer to pr•ove a lot was buildable befor•e gr•anting a lot split. Fahey agr~eed that that issue would be handled by the Building Code and the Building Inspector. LaValle questioned the necessity for• building plans, noting that a per•son could just pur~chase a pr~oper~ty for• speculation. Lee asked if it will be necessary to submit building plans in or~der• to get the lot split appr•oved. FaYiey did not believe it was necessar•y. Fahey pointed out that the lot split was tabled pending a r•epor•t fr•om the City Attor~ney, City Engineer• and City Planner• on the buildability of the pr~oper•ty. The City Engineer• has now submi tted such a r•epor•t. The Planner agr~eed that the City Engineer's report covews the question of buildability. Scalze askeA if ther•e was a liability to the City in splitting a lot and then having it deter•mined that the lot was not buildable. The City Attor•ney stated that ther~e was no liability to the City in such an instance. Scalze asked the minimum lot size in this ar•ea. The Planner~ r•eplied that the minimum lot size is 1 acr~e and the pr~oposal i s to cr~eate a 2.7 acr•e si te. Page -11-