Laserfiche WebLink
• Planning & Zoning Board 2 <br />July 14, 1993 <br />• <br />93 -5 -P, Oaks of Lino, Aspen Lane Subdivision <br />Mr. Brixius explained that this case involves a request <br />to plat 11 R -1, single family lots on 9.32 acres of <br />property. Several concerns were raised in the Planner's <br />Report including the provision of sufficient lot area, <br />width, and depth above the 100 year floodplain elevation. <br />Additional information is needed from the Developer <br />concerning these questions, therefore, staff is <br />recommending that this item be tabled and the Public <br />Hearing continued until the August 11, 1993 meeting of <br />the P & Z. <br />After some discussion, Tom Mesich made a motion <br />recommending the item be continued to the August meeting <br />of the P & Z and was supported by Kathy Nordine. All <br />voted aye. Motion carried. <br />93 -12 -P, Francis Lichtscheidl, 582 Main Street, Subd. <br />Mary Kay Wyland reviewed this case which involves a <br />request to split off a 1.93 acre parcel from the <br />remaining 37 acres. The property is Zoned R -1 and <br />located within the MUSA. In 1985 the P & Z and CC <br />approved a subdivision for this site which split off 5 <br />acres containing the homestead from the balance of the <br />site. This subdivision, however, was never recorded due <br />to problems within the family. Now the larger parcel is <br />for sale and the family wishes the homestead to remain <br />separate. Staff has advised the applicant to record the <br />5 acre subdivision previously approved as the 1.93 acre <br />split is not currently allowed by the ordinance. A 10 <br />acre minimum is required where property is not served by <br />utilities. <br />Mr. Lichtscheidl was present and stated that the family <br />has agreed to the 1.93 acre split which would allow his <br />sister to remain on the homestead. They could not agree <br />with the 5 acre split as it would cut into the larger <br />parcel which they hope to sell for development purposes. <br />After some discussion, Mr. Robinson suggested that Mr. <br />Lichtscheidl record the 5 acre split with a separate, <br />private, agreement for the 3 acres that would go with the <br />larger parcel and be incorporated into it when that piece <br />is further subdivided. This arrangement could not be <br />sanction by the City but it is possible that a private <br />agreement could be reached with a future purchaser. Mr. <br />Robinson further explained that the P & Z can only <br />approve a 10 acre split as the 1.93 is contrary to the <br />