Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 28, 1990 <br />RESOLUTION NO. 90-11-524 - APPROVING THE KRIENKE <br />REQUEST FOR DIVISION OF 89 WEST COUNTY ROAD C INTO TWO <br />LOTS AS WELL AS VARIANCE FOR LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH <br />FROM THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR CORNER LOTS SINCE THE <br />VARIANCE IS NOT DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF THE PROPERTY <br />OWNER, BUT RATHER THE CITY, WITH APPROVALS SUBJECT TO <br />THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY PLANNER AS CONTAINED IN <br />HIS REPORT DATED NOVEMBER l, 1990 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Fahey. <br />Ayes (4) Blesener, Fahey, Collova, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />TACHENY Fahey opened the public hearing to consider the request <br />LOT SPLIT & of Daniel Tacheny for the division of his property <br />VARIANCE located at 623 LaBore Road into two lots as well as a <br />variance from the Code requirement for rear yard <br />setback. Fahey pointed out that both the Planning <br />Commission and City Planner have recommended against <br />the variance request on the basis that there is no <br />hardship. <br />Daniel Tacheny reported that he and his wife bought the <br />property in January of 1989 with the intention of <br />dividing the property into two lots. Tacheny reported <br />that the lot is a large one, consisting of over 28,000 <br />square feet. Tacheny reported that he discussed the <br />matter with the City Planner who informed him that the <br />split would be cut and dried if he had 75 feet of <br />frontage on Payne Avenue. Tacheny reported that he has <br />negotiated the purchase of a piece of property from his <br />neighbor so that he will have the necessary 75 feet of <br />frontage. Tacheny reported that he then went to the <br />expense of having the property surveyed and making <br />application to the City. Tacheny pointed out that the <br />City will benefit by the lot split since another home <br />will be constructed. <br />Fahey pointed out that City's policy of not approving <br />property divisions that result in a non-conformity <br />being created. On that basis, Fahey stated that he <br />could not support the property division and variance <br />request. <br />Tacheny asked if there would be a problem with the lot <br />split if the house were moved to bring the rear yard <br />setback into conformance with Code. <br />The Planner replied that there would be no problem. <br />Tacheny pointed out that the house was constructed <br />Page 9 <br />