06/27/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Lyden stated he concurred with Ms. Lane regarding dealing with applicants in a fair and reasonable manner. Chair Schaps inquired if other plans had been considered. Mr. Valentine stated other plans had been considered and explained why this floor plan was chosen. Tom Carlson, owner, stated he understood that if the variance was granted he waived his right to complaining about any noise from the traffic on the road. Chair Schaps requested applicant consider design of a wetland treatment system. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the variance to allow structures to be 10 feet from the collector road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection, with applicant considering design of a wetland treatment system, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lane). B. Brian Iverson, 20th Avenue, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by explaining applicant was to r- ove a portion of land from one parcel and attach it to the adjacent parcel. The action woul ve the lot line ten feet. The existing property line followed the' /41/4 section line. The .tph o Lion was to move that property line ten feet to the east. The reason was to increase the of the es rn parcel to make it a full 20- acres. The applicant had a buyer for the par „ , (Pa "gel B) w h o wanted a full 20 acres. Staff explained the action would combine int • p p along he Baste �r,-1 a narrow strip of land alon I- 35E, which currently was a separate tax parce the d involved was under the same ownership. Staff indicated currently, a private private easements, not City roads. public roadway, that would that location and there w did not obligate the City in nt and the proposed access easement were t intended the new easement to be a future ed in the future. The City had no plans for a road in ey a road to the City at this time. The new easement Staff stated though the City's su + vision regulations required all lots to have full frontage on a public street, the existing parcel did not have frontage now. The proposed minor subdivision would not alter this situation, it simply increased the size of the driveway access easements. Any future subdivisions that create new lots would be required to have the full frontage on a public street. Staff explained the area was guided for long -term rural use. The City had no plan to extend utilities to this area. Any platting would have to be a maximum density of one lot per 10 acres. No plat approve was being requested. The applicant involved a very minor change in parcel sizes and posed no concern for public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommended approval. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. William Walton, stated he was the person who was attempting to purchase Parcel B. He explained there was an 8 -foot wide easement when they signed the purchase agreement. He was • •