My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-26-96 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
06-26-96 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:48:46 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINi7TES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 26, 1996 <br />entire property. <br />Voosen reported that the Palmen's have no intention of <br />developing this property. <br />Scalze pointed out that property owners change, and <br />eventually this property will develop. <br />Voosen replied that a plat is a lot of expense to go to <br />to build one house. Voosen pointed out the Planning <br />Commission recommended should future houses be <br />proposed, then the plat would be reported. Voosen also <br />noted that the Engineer just wanted a sketch plan to <br />determine how the property could be platted in the <br />future and make sure the proposed lot would not <br />interfere with the platting. Voosen indicated they <br />have an eye on the future in submitting this property <br />division request, but noted the Palmen's have no <br />intention of developing the property. <br />Fahey noted that this proposal raises some big policy <br />issues. Unless the City is prepared to deal with <br />development of lots which have access via private <br />driveways, then 75-feet of frontage on an improved road <br />must be required. <br />Pedersen indicated that he was confused by the <br />presentation and felt a survey would be helpful. <br />Scalze noted that in platting the property, all <br />property owners within 350 feet would be notified and <br />could provide their input and comments. Scalze felt <br />these property owners may object to having a road along <br />their back property lines. Scalze stated that should <br />the Council approve the request as submitted, it will <br />be faced with more proposals of a similar nature. <br />Voosen asked if the L-shaped lot would be feasible <br />given the lot would then have frontage on an improved <br />public street. <br />Fahey stated that he could not approve such a lot split <br />with only a verbal description. Fahey suggested the <br />City Planner review that option and make a <br />recommendation to the Council. Fahey pointed out <br />there is also the question of whether or not the City <br />should require the rest of the area to be platted. <br />Voosen again pointed out that the Planning Commission <br />reviewed the request and approved it. <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.