Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 <br />December 23, 1974 <br />Attorney Meyers stated that the city might want to go as <br />a legal agreement with the applicants to assure that all <br />Councilman Baumgartner presented the Planning Commission <br />request of John Juntunen to subdivide. <br />far as executing <br />conditions are met. <br />recommendation on the <br />Councilman Pickar asked Mrs. Haake what the Planning Commission's policy on <br />sub - standard lot splits is. Mrs. Haake responded that where there is an <br />economic hardship a narrow lot is sometimes allowed if there is adequate <br />square footage for the subdivision. In these cases the Planning Commission <br />has been willing to compromise the frontage requirement. <br />MSP (Pickar- Johnson) To approve the subdivision request of Mr. Juntunen <br />recommended by the Planning Commission. The south (B) lot will have 73 <br />foot frontage and the north (A) lot will have 80 feet frontage and a five <br />foot utility easement will be provided on each side of the north /south lot <br />lines and a dedication will be made to the park fund. <br />D'arcy Bosell, 2601 Ridge Lane, stated that neither her home nor her <br />neighbor's has the required side yard et back. <br />Councilman Baumgartner presented the Planning Commission recommendation on <br />Mr. Sohm's subdivision request. Mr. Sohm stated that he has no objection <br />to a 30 foot street easement and a five foot utility easement as requested <br />by the Planning Commission. <br />Attorney Meyers stated that the deed must show a 15 foot access easement on <br />the east lot also and that the council should require an agreement with the <br />owner that relieves the city of responsibility for providing service on the <br />newly developed street. <br />He recommended against approving the subdivision because it is a bad <br />precedent. <br />Motion (Johnson) To deny the request for subdivision. Motion died for lack <br />of second. <br />Attorney Meyers stated that the subdivision request posed a number of compli- <br />cations and that council should be sure, if they approve the subdivision, to <br />provide adequate stipulations to cover all these. He stated that an assess- <br />ment should be required for the new lot also. <br />MS (Johnson - Hodges) To deny the subdivision request of Mr. Sohm. <br />MSP (Johnson- Baumgartner) To amend the motion to state the reasons for this <br />denial that the property is land locked; there is inadequate provision for <br />utility service; and a decision has not been made to extend Knollwood south <br />of Ardan Avenue. Original motion passed. <br />MSP (Baumgartner - Pickar) To direct the city engineer to conduct a feasi- <br />bility study for extending Knollwood Drive south of Ardan Avenue. <br />MSP (Baumgartner- Johnson) To establish a moratorium on lot splits in this <br />area until this feasibility study is completed. <br />3 Ayes <br />4 Ayes <br />4 Ayes <br />