04-27-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Apr~il 27, 1988 Text Mr•. Collova intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: Amendment Ordinance RESOLUTION N0. 88-4-161 - CLOSING THE PUBLIC No. 298 NEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE N0. 298 (Cont.) The foregoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. alesener. Ayes (5) Collova, Blesener, LaValle, Fahey, Scalze. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 165. Fahey noted that Council action on this matter• will be withheld pending a r•ecommendation fr•om the Planning Commission. Gar•dner• Fahey r~epor•ted that the Planning Commission has r~ecommended appr~oval of Bros. Final the Gar•dner• Bros. final plat subject to the r~ecommendations of the City Plat Planner•, contingent upon pr•oper• dr~ainage of the site, and subject to a 20 foot setback on the souther~n pr•oper•ty 1 i ne. Agenda Item No. 11 David Heller~, r•epr•esenting Gardner• Br•os., asked Council to consider• a 15 foot setback on the souther•n pr•oper•ty line, pointing out that the site is being divided into thr~ee lots. The souther~n-most lot has fr•ontage to DeSoto Street, ther•efor•e, the souther~n pr~oper~ty 1 i ne i s consider~ed to be the side lot line. Heller• also pointed out that Slumber•land has a 15 foot setback fr~om this same lot line as this is the side lot line for• Slumber•land. The Planner• stated that 15 feet is the r~equir~ed setback fr~om a side lot line. The Planner• repor•ted that his or•iginal r~ecommendation was for~ a 20 foot souther~n setback, which took into consider•ation County Road D as the access for~ the souther•n par~cel. Nowever~, if DeSoto is considered the frontyard, then 15 feet is a reasonable setback along the souther•n lot line. Fahey was agr•eeable pointing out that the City is not allowing access to DeSoto and noting the ~1SP easement which r•uns thr•ough the pr•oper~ty. Scal ze agr•eed. Blesener agr•eed as long as DeSoto was consider•ed the fr•ontyar•d and no variance is necessar~y. Scalze asked if Gar~dner Br•os. would be dedicating the r•est of the DeSoto Str•eet easement. Nel l er• r~epl i ed that they woul d. The Pl anner~ noted that ther~e i s 33 feet of str•eet r•i ght-of-way al r•eady dedicated. The City has since r~educed the amount of r•ight-of-way necessar•y for~ r•esidential str~eets fr•om 66 feet to 50 feet, and, ther~efor•e, Page -14-