Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 25, 1990 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (4) Blesener, Scalze, Fahey, Collova. <br />Nays (O). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />PUBLIC Fahey opened the public hearing to consider the <br />HEARING application submitted by Thomas Stewart for division of <br />PROPERTY the property at 314 Rose Place into two lots as well as <br />DIVISION & a variance from the Code requirement of improved road <br />VARIANCE frontage for the newly created lot. Fahey reported <br />STEWART that the Planning Commission recommended approval of <br />the property division, but denied the variance request. <br />Blesener pointed out that the City Engineer's <br />recommendation is that the applicant not be allowed to <br />build over the existing sewer which runs through the <br />property. However, Blesener pointed out the <br />documentation submitted by the applicant which, in the <br />handwriting of the previous City Attorney, indicates <br />that the sewer easement would not prevent the land from <br />being developed. <br />Collova pointed out that the City has not approved a <br />property division that would create a variance <br />situation. <br />Fahey agreed, and indicated that the Fasciana lot off <br />of Twin Lake Road was granted a similar variance, <br />however, this lot existed as a lot of record. Fahey <br />questioned whether the previous City Attorney <br />envisioned the property being divided. <br />Blesener believed he did, otherwise felt that the City <br />would have had to pay more than $500 for a sewer <br />easement if that easement would destroy the property as <br />a buildable lot. <br />The City Engineer reported that it is possible to lay <br />out a building on the lot without that building being <br />placed over the easement. <br />Mr. Bill Stewart, property owner, indicated that when <br />he built his home on the property he placed it so that <br />the he could divide the property into two lots sometime <br />in the future. Stewart also indicated that the <br />previous City Engineer indicated that there would be no, <br />problem developing the property in the future. Stewart <br />stated that he paid $200 for a sewer stub to the lot. <br />Fahey stated that he had a problem with the fact that <br />Page 3 <br />