1977-08-10 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 10, 197T Rose recommended the Comnission upprove h1r. Celt's request sub~ect to his written ~ agreement to pay for necessary improvements for the development. Paye 3 Cumriission Member Glazer inquired why it was ner.essary for the City to tie up so much land for easements, i.e., A2' for this perticular subdivision, and asked if Qnco the utitity easements were taken, what would happen to the rest of the easemenLs Leken. Official Rose replled that the City could'vacate the easements, at the owners request. He aiso sCated that the 12' easement on Siiver Lake Road mlght possibty b~•necessary for a sidewalk. Counciimember Baum,yertner pointed out that the sewer and water 11nes would have to cross over two or three othar properties before reaching Mr. Ce1t's 1ots. L~fficial Rusu replied that ene~mente Nere takan on eurliar subdivision, but that additional footage wouid be necassery if services were run along the xenr lot Iinos, Offilcia7 Rosn also pointed out that the easements taken would not stop the owner from buildittg as curranC satbu~ks ara a minimum of 30 ft. Commission Member Pos, asked if a 30' easement was necessary for the ~ewer end waYer 11nes. Official Rose replied that it was. due to the soil conditions in the area, the land must be banked to insure that it does not cave in, Councilmember Baumgartner ;~sked if the development of the property would create dratnage problems since tha tot would have to be filled in somewhat and might create a dam. Mr. Ce1t replied Chat 1t would not cause problems since the north side of the lot was h7gh and then it graduaily sloped down to the south and that the onty area that would have to be fiiied in was the slope. Official Rose reported that the area was dry present1y although there was water further south from there a few years previous. Commission Member Glazer questloned if asking for a 42' easement was going to set a precedent for future develcpments in the area. Official Rose repiied that it mast 1lkeiy wauld but tha8 a11 the lots in the area were big and spaclous and wauld not crASta a problem. C~~mslssion t4ember Fedor asked Mr. Celt how he felt abcut a 42' easement being taken. Hr. Ceit raplied that the lots wero c~rtainly targe enough and that there were aatually two 1ots the eesements were being taken from, not ~ust ane, end that he didn't mti~d, MSP (Fedor-Gtazer) to recommend to the G1ty Council that they approve the minor sub- division request of John Celt at 7635 Groveland Road, creating two 1ots, both heing 132' wide by 205' deep, wlth !5' ut111ty easements on the rear 1ot 11nes on both lots and a 12' eas~ment on the east 1ot line. The petitioner would be required to enter into a written agreemerat wtxh tha City for all necessary improvements. 7 ayos Commission Member D)anchard asked what would haopen if e property cwner refused to grant the necessary eesement. Officiet Rose replled thet e petltion wouid be necessa~y and a public heering would be held and the proparty eventually candemned tf agreement was not resched. ~ Councilmember Baumyartner pointed out that if the iot spiit is9ranted and a bulldable lot is creaCed thet th~ City 1s 119bie for bringing in lmprovemants.