03-23-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council March 23, 1988 Gor~dy Fahey pointed out that if it wer•e deemed that the proper~ty would be Howe benefited by the r•oad, the pr~oper•ty would be assessed for• the impr•ovement. Dr~i veway Request Howe agr~eed that the proper~ty would be benefited by a r~oad impr~ovement. (cont.) The City Attor•ney stated that the City could enter• into an agr•eement with Mr~. Howe that he would not object to any impr•ovement of the r•oad on the nor•th side of the lot, but did not think the City could r~equir•e an agr~eement stating that he would not object to any assessments for• that r~oad. The City Attor•ney suggested that any agr•eement that is dr•awn up be filed against the pr~oper•ty. Fahey suggested that simply as a condition of appr•oval of the driveway, Mr~. Howe agr~ee that he woul d be deemed i n favor~ of a r~oad impr•ovement should one go in. This would then be available to subsequent councils at the time a r•oad impr•ovement would be assessed. Mr•. Fahey intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-3-108 - APPROVINf, THE GORDY HOWE REQUEST FOR DRIVE4IAY ACCESS TO THE CITY'S ROADWAY EASEPIENT FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDE~ITIAL DWELLI~IG TO f3E CONSTRUCTED ON LOT 1, 6LOCK 1, LAI<EVIEW ESTATES SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF A LETTER TO THE CITY CLERK ACK~IOt~ll_EDGIPlG THAT MR. HOt~JE DOES NOT OBJECT TO Fl CITY STP,CET BEIPIG IMPROVED ON THAT EASED9FNT APID THAT MR. HO~~!E WILL ADVISE ANY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THF PROPERTY OF THIS AGREEP'IENT The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconcled by Mr~. filesener~. Ayes (4) Fahey, Blesener~, Scalze, Collova. Nays (0). P,esolution declared adopted. This r~esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 112. Neamy Mr. 6ene Schultz appeared before the Council requesting that previous Pr~oper•ty Council r~equir~ement for• r~emoval of 4.5 feet fr•om the Neamy gar•age be Division r•escinded and that a building per•mit be allowed on Lot A. Agenda Fahey explained that when the City pr•eviously acted on the pr~oper~ty Item No. 9 division of the Neamy pr~oper•ty it was with the r•equir~ement that when a building permit is issued for Lot A, that 4.5 feet of the ~leamy gar•age be r~emoved so that the setback of the Neamy gar~age would meet Code requirements. Scalze explained that this was done as City Code does not allow a pr•operty division that would r~esult in the need for a variance. The City is not allowed to cr~eate a non-confor~ming lot. Paqe -9-