Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />December 2, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked as to whether the City considered selling the <br />lots off to the south of this area to facilitate purchase of the <br />park. <br /> <br />Cushman replied those other uses were proposed for the lots south <br />of the park. <br /> <br />Stokes asked as to whether the City faced a liability problem if <br />this were tabled. Dahlgren replied that the Planning Commission <br />has the authority to table items for up to sixty days. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Johnson, Berry, DeBenedet, and Goedeke. <br />Stokes and Moeller. <br /> <br />Burroughs asked for clarification of the tabling motion, which <br />Johnson and Waldron proceeded to do. <br /> <br />Planning File No. 1814 <br />Duane L. Knopik request for division of platted lot at 629 Shryer <br />Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Dahlgren showed the location of the proposed development. <br />Essentially the lots would end up being approximately 75' x 108'. <br />This results in a lot of roughly 8,100 feet versus the 12,500 <br />requirement of corner lots for the City. <br /> <br />Dahlgren also discussed the existing deed restriction, and the <br />fact that if this lot were split, it would eventually apply to <br />the other lots in the area. <br /> <br />Waldron proceeded to explain the deed restriction, which limited <br />the development of one house per each lot. It would require a <br />majority vote of the subdivision titleholders to modify this <br />element. Waldron stated that he had discussed this issue with <br />the City Attorney, and it was the City Attorney's recommendation <br />that the City proceed with a decision; however, if the deed <br />restriction was still valid, it would be the neighbors' responsi- <br />bility to privately enforce the deed restrictions. If upheld, <br />the deed restriction would override any Planning Commission and <br />Council action. <br /> <br />Stokes proceeded to excuse himself from considering this item, <br />based on a potential conflict of interest situation. <br /> <br />Mrs. Christensen submitted a petition to the Planning Commission, <br />pointing out that the neighbors are indeed opposed to this lot <br />split. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked whether the City has permitted a small lot split <br />like this in the past. Dahlgren replied that there were <br />instances where this has occurred. <br />