04-26-95 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 26, 1995 Morelan stated that service vehicles such as garbage trucks do provide service to the area and have for as long as there have been homes in the area. Morelan did acknowledge, however, that it is easier to do so on Bluwood than Australian. Garbage trucks must back down Australian once they have completed their pick-up. Morelan reported that Public Works has indicated that they would prefer a cul-de-sac improvement rather than a connecting street since they would prefer to plow cul-de-sacs than the 90 degree corners which would result from the improvement of Jackson Street. Morelan pointed out that the Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend the improvement of Jackson Street. Morelan indicated that the Planning Commission based their recommendation on the Planner's report, which he felt was scewed. The Planner assumed that the Tima property was currently two parcels, when it is one. In the report he also cited possible reasons for granting a street width variances, and cited Section 902.010 of the Zoning Code. Morelan pointed out that this is not a zoning issue, but rather a subdivision issue, and quoted the three criteria listed in the Subdivision Code which justify the granting of a variance should all three criteria be present. The first is that there must be special and highly unique circumstances present which deprive the property owner of reasonable use of the land . Morelan pointed out that Mr. Tima is not denied the reasonable use of his land. He has a lot and the lot has a house on it. The lot is large, however, and Mr. Tima would like to subdivide it. The City is not compelled to grant a variance because of it. The second is that granting the variance cannot be a detriment to the public health and welfare or injurious to other property. Morelan felt that the street improvement would have a negative impact on his property value. The third condition is that the variance be needed because of the topography or soil conditions. There is no justification for a variance under this provision. Morelan stated that the bottom line is that the City has no justification for granting the variance. The Planning Commission was led to believe that there was because the City Planner had a misunderstanding about the property. Morelan also did not believe from the discussion which took place at the Planning Commission meeting that the Commission has adequate time to review 6