PL MINUTES 06171980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- Motion, by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr. .Peterson to approve as amended the minutes for the May 20, 1980. Planning. Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bowerman will represent the Commission at the .Council meeting to be held June 24th. At 7 : 40 P.M. the Chairman opened the public hearing on the Blanske vacation petitionby reading the notice which had been published twice, as required. Mr.. Berg reported no mailings -were necessary since Mr. Blanske owns 100 percent of the abutting property and he presented the survey of Sunset .Lane .on which had been i.ndicated .the portion which Mr. Blanske is proposing be vacated and attached to his existing .property, Lot 20, Block 12.. The Administrative Assistant suggested any motion recommending approval should-include the find- ing that the vacation "will be in the best interest of the City" . He .then reiterated the basis staff had found for recommending approval of the proposal which had been detailed in his memorandum of June 13 . Chairman _Bjorklund asked Mr. Berg to read aloud the conclusions of the Commission December 13, 1979, which withheld approval of the vacation at that time. Mr. . Bjorklund also pointed.-out the inconsis- tencies, as he saw them, in the opinion of the City Attorney, which Mr. Berg had reported in-his memo, regarding the City' s chances of winning a favorable decision if an attempt to rezone the property to residential were challenged in court and Mr. Soth' s general assessment of downzoning rendered in his July 6 , 1978 , memorandum. The Chairman. also pointed to the Comprehensive Plan' s concluding there is "a conflict of uses". in this area. Mr. Sopcinski responded that though the. Comprehensive -Plan acknowledged the conflict of uses it did not specifically recommend rezoning this particular property to conform to the existing residential development and said all communities live with a similar conflict of, usage mix side by side. Mr. , Berg answered his queries regarding whether specific lines between uses had been drawn for the City by saying no such specific definitions have been accepted to date. Ed Hance, Mr. Blanske' s attorney, told .the Commission that, since the City is not using the southerly portion of Sunset Lane, .which is in reality only a hill with a slope of 600,- and there can be no value to the City to retain it in its present .form, it might be better to put it on the tax. rolls. by having Mr. Blanske develop it. He also suggested that the recommendation of- approval should include the directionthat the vacated portion should be attached to Mr. Blanske' s property. Mr. Blanske then said he intended to .build a new concrete or blacktop road on Sunset Lane, according to. the specifications of the City and • was willing to sign a developer' s agreement to that effect contingent on approval of the vacation.. Since he owns all the property which