Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />June 13, 2001 <br />Page 4 <br />• Mr. Lyden stated he concurred with Ms. Lane regarding dealing with applicants in a fair and <br />reasonable manner. <br />• <br />• <br />Chair Schaps inquired if other plans had been considered. Mr. Valentine stated other plans had <br />been considered and explained why this floor plan was chosen. <br />Tom Carlson, owner, stated he understood that if the variance was granted he waived his right to <br />complaining about any noise from the traffic on the road. <br />Chair Schaps requested applicant consider design of a wetland treatment system. <br />Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the variance to allow structures to be 10 feet from the <br />collector road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection, <br />with applicant considering design of a wetland treatment system, and was supported by Mr. <br />Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lane). <br />B. Brian Iverson, 20th Avenue, Minor Subdivision <br />Staff presented the application by explaining applicant was to remove a portion of land from one <br />parcel and attach it to the adjacent parcel. The action would move the lot line ten feet. The <br />existing property line followed the 1/4 1/4 section line. The application was to move that property <br />line ten feet to the east. The reason was to increase the size of the western parcel to make it a <br />full 20- acres. The applicant had a buyer for the parcel (Parcel B) who wanted a full 20 acres. <br />Staff explained the action would combine into the eastern parcel a narrow strip of land along I- <br />35E, which currently was a separate tax parcel. All of the land involved was under the same <br />ownership. <br />Staff indicated currently, a private driveway easement and the proposed access easement were <br />private easements, not City roads. If the applicant intended the new easement to be a future <br />public roadway, that would have to be analyzed in the future. The City had no plans for a road in <br />that location and there was no intent to convey a road to the City at this time The new easement <br />did not obligate the City in any way. <br />Staff stated though the City's subdivision regulations required all lots to have full frontage on a <br />public street, the existing parcel did not have frontage now. The proposed minor subdivision <br />would not alter this situation, it simply increased the size of the driveway access easements. Any <br />future subdivisions that create new lots would be required to have the full frontage on a public <br />street. <br />Staff explained the area was guided for long -term rural use. The City had no plan to extend <br />utilities to this area. Any platting would have to be a maximum density of one lot per 10 acres. <br />No plat approve was being requested. The applicant involved a very minor change in parcel <br />sizes and posed no concern for public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommended approval. <br />Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. <br />Mr. William Walton, stated he was the person who was attempting to purchase Parcel B. He <br />explained there was an 8 -foot wide easement when they signed the purchase agreement. He was <br />