pm_800806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

- c.- until the September 3, Planning Commission meeting. k~11 Call, Ayes: Dressler, G. Johnson, Rukavina, Simons and V. Johnson. Nays: None. Planning File 1268 - Mark Johnson request for variance to retain a 6 foot hioh fence located on the property line adjacent to County Road D at 3116 Mildred Drive. Presentation Mr. North requested that the application be continued until the September 3, Planning Commission meeting. Recommendation Mr. G. Johnson moved and Mr. Simons seconded, that Mark Johnson's request for variance to retain a 6 foot high fence located on the property line adjacent to County Road D at 3116 Mildred Drive be continued until the September 3, Planning Commission meeting. Roll Call, Ayes: Dressler, G. Johnson, Rukavina, Simons and V. Johnson. Nays: None. Planning File 1265 - Proposed Ordinance Providing for Park Dedication at the Time of Subdivision of Property Presentation Mr. Dahlgren indicated that at the last Commission meeting, concern was expressed regarding the effect of the proposed park dedication ordinance on the property owner who is just creating one additional lot and lives on a street where all the improvements are completed. In order to eliminate the concern he suggested the following two changes: 1) That any lot created to accommodate an existing home be exempt from the park dedication requirement. 2) That any lot where the lot frontage for one lot depth is contiguous to an existing developed street be exempt from the park dedication requirement. In residential lots, one lot depth shall be 135 feet, or less, if previously established by subdivision. In commercial and industrial lots, one lot depth shall be 300 feet, or less, if previously established by subdivision. Mr. Simons indicated that he was concerned about the ordinance applying only to the school district property located in the northeastern portion of the city. Mr. Rukavina commented that there were several other areas in the City that the dedication ordinance would apply, both in residential property and commercial and industrial property. Mr. Simons commented that if it became necessary to use an appraiser to determine the value of the property to be subdivided, that it was vitally important that the appraisal be a fair and equitable one. Mr. V. Johnson expressed concern that the ordinance could be considered a taking of property, however, the fact that most other metropolitan cities have a similar ordinance, as indicated by Mr. Dahlgren, convinced him to proceed ahead with the ordinance.