Laserfiche WebLink
June 11, 1979 Page 5 <br />Mayor McCarty stated Mr. Villella had not given the Council a chance to work <br />with him by withdrawing the request. He emphasized the Council's willing- <br />ness to work together with him and other developers, but time and patience <br />is necessary to work out details. <br />MSP (McCarty/Ziebarth) to deny the request for Bayport Builders based on <br />Ordinances 42.05 subdivision 1, section 7; 42.05 subdivision 1, item B; <br />42.08 section 2; and 42.05 subdivision 4, section 2. <br />4 ayes <br />MINOR SUBDIVISION--KENNETH SJODIN--8100 GROVELAND ROAD <br />Official Rose explained the applicant is proposing a minor subdivision <br />located on Groveland Road north of Highway 10. The applicant requests <br />dividing the property into an east area measuring 77.5' x 200' and creating <br />a land-locked parcel to the rear measuring 258' x 230'. There are existing <br />sewer and water services for Lot A from Groveland Road. There would be no <br />existing services or public access for the land-locked parcel. <br />Mr. Sjodin explained the lot to be built upon would become an L-shaped lot <br />200' x 77.5' which meets code requirements. An existing house would be <br />torn down. He stated it was not unusual to have land-locked parcels and <br />there were several in the area to the north. He didn't feel there was much <br />chance of Knollwood going through, but if it did, there would be an easement. <br />Mayor McCarty inquired as to the number of land-locked parcels and Mr. Sjodin <br />replied there probably were four or five. Councilmember Rowley, checking a <br />map of the area, located two. She stated that one of these had gone tax <br />forfeit. <br />Mayor McCarty stated that pressure for roads usually results after creating <br />a land-locked area. He further stated that a possible Knollwood extension <br />would run along approximately 11 other properties and their input would be <br />helpful. <br />Councilmember Rowley questioned what guarantee the City would have the <br />Mr. Sjodin would not let the area go tax forfeit. Mr. Sjodin replied he <br />would not let this happen. He is only interested in severing Lot B from <br />Lot A which he plans to develop; that its not wise to leave an area that <br />large on the developed lot. <br />MS (Rowley/McCarty) to deny the minor subdivision because of the creation <br />of a land-locked parcel and the lack of future plans and where easements <br />could be taken to service the area. <br />City Administrator Nelson suggested the possibility of preparing a resolution <br />to this effect. <br />Councilmember Rowley withdrew the previous motion. <br />MSP (Rowley/McCarty) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the <br />minor subdivision creating the hnd-locked parcel with points that is is <br />inconsistent with planning and because of the inability to gain access for <br />roadway and extension of services. <br />4 ayes <br />