05/28/1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Uhde stated the sale of 10 feet will not have a negative effect on the development. He believes that the property line was miscalculated in a metes and bounds survey. Mr. Dunn asked if Mr. Uhde and Mr. Dorschner have reached agreement on a purchase price for the 10 feet. Mr. Uhde responded that a purchase agreement has been reached contingent upon the action of the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council. Mr. Herr stated that he is inclined to bring the matter to a permanent closure and allow the sale of 10 feet to Mr. Dorschner. The rationale for the variance for Mr. Uhde's property is fitting. He asked for staffs rationale in recommending the easement option. Ms. Wyland stated that historically variances are not usually favored. Mr. Herr stated that he believes the City bears some responsibility for the problem because a survey was not required at the time the property was platted. Also, an easement always leaves uncertainties for the future. Mr. Gelbmann agreed with Mr. Herr and stated he would like to see a permanent resolution. The size of the lot where a variance is being created is larger than the minimum standard which minimizes the impact of the variance. Mr. Dunn agreed that Mr. Dorschner has made a reasonable request. It is the duty of the City to rectify this error that has been handed down. He would support granting the minor subdivision contingent upon Mr. Uhde not challenging the City with this action. He recommended that members support Option No. 1 to take care of a difficult situation and one that would be otherwise very costly to rectify. Mr. Robinson stated that his only problem with approving the subdivision request is setting a precedent. Chair Schaps noted that the Board must make specific findings of fact to approve the subdivision and variance as follows: A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. As it exists, the garage will be difficult to enter without the additional 10 feet provided with this subdivision. However, an easement would allow the same access. B. That the plight of the land owners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. Although the access problem was not created by the current property owner, Mr. Dorschner, the original building/owner created the problem by orienting the garage entrance to the west with only 26 feet to 6