CC 05-14-1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Monday, May 14, 1984 Page Two the three-lot concept only if all neighbors concur. (letter was given to Council) Grudnoske asked if the one sewer connection. for sewer was prior to the assessment. Bona property was assessed for more than Christoffersen reported that the assessment his time; records can be checked to verify Attorney Bell noted that the questions posed by Mrs. Grudnoske are not applicable to the application tonight; request is for a land split from the Bussard property. Miller said that by his "scaled calculations" it appears the acquisition of 9000 to 10,000 S.F. by Bona would provide the needed depth for an additional building lot. Bell referred Council to a contract that Mr. Bona has with U.S.F.W.S. which was dated and accepted a year after the copy of the letter Grudnoske referred to Council. . After discussion, Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council approve the split of the 700'f x 20'f strip from the Bussard property as per Warranty Deed presented. In discussion, Mulcahy said he feels Mrs. Grudnoske's concerns afe well-founded; letter was written about a year before contract between Bona and U.S.F.W.S., suggested to Mrs. Grudnoske and her neighbors that Council has not approved three lots, no variances are requested; noted that the consolidation of the acquired parcel and the split of the existing lot will have to occur first; feels that Mrs. Grudnoske's concerns will be adequately protected. In further discussion, Miller was ~sked the size of typical lots in this area. Miller referred Council to a section map; noted that the lots tend to vary in width and depth: To the north 4 in To the south - 1 at 1 at 1 at 2 at a row at 100' width 118.7' width 90 'width 180 'wi dth 100 . width etc. Hicks explained that he feels 10,000 S.F. is an adequate acquisition for the creation of an additional building lot; 14,000 S.F. does not appear to be needed. Christiansen referred to letter; noted that the proposal to the neighborhood was for a two lot concept (original lot plus one additional lot); exchange should reflect the two lot concept. Woodburn explained that Council is obligated to uphold the ordinances; said he has no intention of granting a permanent variance relative to the lot split. Motion carried (Rauenhorst, Mulcahy, Woodburn voting in favor of . the motion; Hicks and Christiansen voting in opposition). (3-2) Case No. 84-9 Minor Subdivision Danie Ashbach, 1567 Oak Avenue Miller described the proposed minor subdivision to be a two-phase "private urban renewal project" and referred Council to a trans- parency of the proposed split of a 50' x 470' lot into three parcels, two of which will be consolidated to the rear of adjacent lots; the third to contain an existing house which applicant proposes to rent for 3-5 years and then remove the house and split the lot, consolidating it with the two adjacent properties.