Laserfiche WebLink
May 22, 1973 Page 4 <br />Councilmember Rowley stated she agreed with exempting senior citizens and disabled <br />people. She added that Phase I does not include the upgrading of County Road H -2 <br />and that she has no problem with ordering Phase 1. She added that she does not <br />want to see the residents assessed for the storm sewer portion of the project. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth stated he has been committed to deferring the assessment <br />for elderly and disabled people. <br />MSP (Pickar - Hodges) to order Project 1978-3, direct that plans and specifications <br />for Phase I be prepared and that bids be solicited on Phase I. The only special <br />assessment proposed for single family residents will be for concrete curb and <br />gutter on County Road H -2. Before the assessment hearing, the City Council will <br />look into the possibility of waiving assessments for elderly and disabled persons. <br />A roll call vote was taken: <br />Councilmember Hodges - nay <br />Councilmember Baumgartner - aye <br />Councilmember Rowley - aye <br />Councilmember Ziebarth - aye <br />Mayor Pickar - aye <br />Mayor Pickar closed the public hearing and opened the next public hearing. <br />MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING <br />Ron Murphy, a representative of Comstock and Davis, presented a sketch plat of <br />the area. <br />4 ayes <br />1 nay <br />Engineer Hubbard stated that the area was not included on the Short, Elliott, <br />Hendrickson report for improvements. He stated he had reviewed the project and <br />anticipated no need for drainagement improvements with the plat. <br />Councilmember Rowley asked if approval from the Highway Department had been received <br />for Outlot A. Mr. Murphy replied that they had applied for approval and that if it <br />is not granted, the outlot will become part of the other lots. <br />Administrator Achen reported that the area is an area where the existing zoning is <br />basically for commercial development and that the Planning Commission has indicated <br />a desire to avoid continued growth of strip commercial development along Highway 10. <br />He added that this was the first area the City has been successful in getting the <br />developer to down zone. <br />Attorney Meyers pointed out that there are two lots that are substandard, Lot 1, <br />which has a 90' frontage with 100° required, and Lot 13. He stated the Council <br />would have to find a hardship to grant the variances. <br />Mr. Murphy stated that Lot 1 fronts on three streets, and meets the requirement on <br />two of those. He also explained that Lot 13 is an odd shaped lot and the necessary <br />frontage is obtained once you go back on the lot. <br />Engineer Hubbard reported that Staff has recommended that on Lot 13, frontage be <br />measured at the building line due to it's odd shape, and that the necessary frontage <br />would then be met. He added that Lot 1 is on a curve in the road, which reduced the <br />frontage. <br />