Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 14, 1991 <br />a 10 foot sideyard setback. Even with the variance, it <br />would be necessary to set his house back 125 feet. <br />Carlson reported that he would like to move his house <br />farther forward on the lot so that he can put in a <br />basement bathroom. Carlson pointed out that with the <br />vacation he could move the house 30 to 40 feet closer <br />to the road, but would still be behind the other houses <br />on Burke Lane. <br />Blesener suggested that should the vacation be <br />approved, the Carlson property would no longer be a <br />corner lot and the variance would be unnecessary. <br />Blesener pointed out that the issue of vacation of this <br />portion of Condit Street has come up before. The <br />vacation was never approved in the past because there <br />was some question about how the area would develop. <br />However, this issue has now been resolved. <br />Blesener pointed out the letter from Sue Nelson, <br />representing the Burke Lane neighborhood, expressing <br />concern with retention of walkway access to the Water <br />Works property. The neighborhood is concerned that the <br />trail will attract people from outside the neighborhood <br />resulting in a parking problem. Blesener stated that <br />in this case the trail access would be provided for the <br />neighborhood, and not intended to draw from outside the <br />area. <br />Carlson pointed out that the Park Commission indicated <br />that there is another access point further west, <br />therefore, when an access is developed, there are two <br />options to choose from. <br />Collova pointed out that if a walkway is developed from <br />Burke Lane, it will be necessary to construct a bridge <br />to cross the creek. <br />Hanson suggested that given the width of Condit Street <br />and Burke Lane, it may be advisable to post these <br />streets as no parking. <br />There was no one else from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Blesener, seconded by LaValle, the <br />public hearing was closed. <br />Council discussed whether or not the Carlson property <br />would have corner lot status after the vacation, thus <br />affecting the need for the setback variance. It was <br />suggested that this issue be left to the discretion of <br />the City Planner. <br />Page 5 <br />