Laserfiche WebLink
Apri1 12, 1918 <br />Paga 9 <br />~ ~-76' lots on ~roveland Road alreaAy and that the people wha wented to build att the one <br />,k~ ~ ~ ot he wes requesting were presently 1lving doHn the streeC on a 75' lot. <br />a, <br />'t Otficiel Rose pointed out that there is a morat.orium on a11 develupment, including <br />building permits end thet the oniy way Staff would recommend such a minor subdiW sion <br />was if Mr. S~odin wuuld dedicate the necessary street easements through the property <br />; if it wes shown to be th~ most feasible place to put the ruad through. He adddd ttint <br />iP Mr. S,~aA1n were to se11 the property, the new owner could try to block having the <br />; street put through. <br />Mr. S~odtn asked which would be the best Way for the road to go in. Officlal Rose <br />replied that it Mould be best to Cie up with Sherwood Road, past the lot that Mr. <br />S~odin would like to subdivide. <br />Mr. S~od1n explained that when he originall,y purchasecl the property he had intended <br />to tear down the old honse and create two huiidable loCS with the assessments paid, <br />fronting G~~oveland artd that it would now be much wore expensive if the easements <br />were takett por the raad. <br />Comnisston Member Foss stated that he thought that the required 35~ uf the pra~ercy <br />owners were willing to petition for the road to be put 1n. <br />Chatrperson Haake asked Mr. S~odin if he would be willing to enter into an agreer~~ent <br />with the Lity LhaC the south 7ot would not be built on untit a decision was made on <br />where tho road would go thraugh. Mr. S,~odin replled ttiat he was wtTling to enter into <br />- such an agre~ment. Ile addad tliaC lie would prefer tx~~ 77~,' lots versus one 96' lot <br />~~ <br />in case the road did not go thraegh, since then he would stili have two buildable tots. <br />Comnission Member Glazer asked if 35~ of the residents petitioned Por the road, tf #he <br />City would consider putting the roed in and hold a pubiic hearing. Official,Rose <br />repllQd tfiat the tast time the Counc9l considered the issue they had stated that <br />they would not review it agaln until 35% of Lhe owners petitioned Por a road and <br />they woutd then holA a public hearing. <br />Offictal Rose stated that Mr. 5,lodin should be required to put 1n writing that he <br />was willing to glve the 60' easement and not build on'the other lot, since 1f tfiey <br />create two 77~s' lots and he reyuested a building permit, lie could 1n!nr appiy for a <br />building permit for the second 1ot and the City would then have to yo tn court to try <br />and stop him from bullding, <br />Mr. S,~odin stated that he would p~•t in writing that he would not ask for a:econd <br />building permit until a decision was made on the road. <br />Comnlssion Member Fedor asked if the residents should petit,ion for a road right away <br />so a feasi6111ty study could be done and a decision reached shortly. OPficial Rose <br />replied thet it wouid take at least a month to do a feasibility study and that the <br />Council would not be c~nsidering the issue for aC least a month. <br />F1r. S,~ndin stated that he would agree to do nothing until a decision was reached on <br />the road. Comnlssion t4ember Fedor replled that the City had not done anything sine~: <br />no one had petitoned far servtces. He also added that they would be creating two <br />substandard lots if thcy granted two 77~5' 1ots. <br />~''~Comnisslon Member Foss stated that he woula be in favor af the minor subdlvision if <br />Mr. S~adin would reassure the City that ne wouid not do enything on the south tot <br />unt11 the raad was pu~c thrcugh. <br />