Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 14, 1990 <br />Kroiss requested that the Commission approve the <br />division as proposed, which he felt would result in <br />less trees being lost than if one of the Planner's <br />options were approved. Kroiss also stated that <br />easement agreements were nothing but headaches. <br />Jeanne Kroiss reported that she lives in the home <br />located on Lot 3. She was concerned about the wall and <br />attaching a stairway to it. Kroiss reported that there <br />are cracks in the wall. Kroiss questioned whether it <br />would be necessary to remove trees should one of the <br />Planner's options be approved. Kroiss also questioned <br />whether the lot line adjustment was necessary. <br />Mr. John Lackner, resident of the area, reported that <br />he opposed the division of the Kroiss property when it <br />was proposed several years ago, and he is opposed to <br />the lot line adjustment being proposed. Lackner was <br />concerned about the lot lines which have been drawn <br />over the wall. Lackner felt that the house on Lot 3 <br />was the type of home that needed a large piece of land <br />and questioned the effect on this home if the property <br />was cut up. Lackner pointed out that he and his <br />neighbors also own large pieces of land which could be <br />subdivided, however, he did not feel this would be good <br />for the City. <br />Mr. Kroiss pointed out that he is only asking for a lot <br />line adjustment. <br />Mrs. Kroiss reported that she lives in the home on Lot <br />3 and Mr. Kroiss does not. Therefore, he is not as <br />concerned about the property as she is. Mrs. Kroiss <br />pointed out that if Lot 2 is sold there could be a home <br />developed on it that would be only 20 feet from her <br />home. Kroiss questioned Mr. Kroiss's legal ability to <br />either sell or develop the property, pointing out that <br />there is a divorce action pending between the two of <br />them, and the issue of disposition of property has not <br />been settled. Mrs. Kroiss stated that should she <br />receive the property, it would be her intention not to <br />develop Lot 2, but to combine that lot with Lot 3, and <br />retain it as part of the natural terrain that goes with <br />the house. <br />Mr. Kroiss reported that on May 29th the judge released <br />the land since it is owned by Kroiss Homes, Inc., and <br />gave him the authority to sell it without Mrs. Kroiss's <br />permission. Kroiss again pointed out that he is only <br />asking for a lot line adjustment, and stated that he <br />would do nothing to the detriment of the house. Kroiss <br />Page 3 <br />