Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE #1485-K-P PROPERTIES CONTINUED <br />of-way, it will render Lot 1 useless. Mr. Peterson noted that <br />the property on the east side. North Arm Estates, and the <br />Armstrongs, have already dedicated 33' of right-of-way. He felt <br />that any additional right-of-way should be taken from the west <br />side. <br />Brown asked why t^e septic sites could not be moved 17' to <br />the east? <br />Caffron repli<;i that there are steep slopes in that <br />]ocation. <br />Mr. Peterson said that he has had an on-site septic <br />evaluator examine every possibility and in their opinion, if the <br />sites are moved at al 1, there wil 1 be a problem. <br />Kelley said that if the City requires the 17', nothing can <br />be done with lot 1. <br />Mabusth told Kelley that nothing more than a two bedroom <br />home could be constructed on that lot. Mabusth said however, <br />that Mr. Peterson's comment regarding 33' of right-of-way taken <br />from the parcels on the east side of North Arm Lane was a fact <br />that she had not known. <br />Mr. Peterson said that he searched the chain of title on <br />this property and the 33' was never owned by the owner of 4590 <br />North Arm Drive. He said that he went approximately six deeds <br />back and there is no indication that the 33' was ever owned by <br />the people on the west side, it was taken out of the property on <br />the east side. He said that if the City was to take another 17' <br />of right-of-way from the east side, that all of the right-of-way <br />would come from one side. <br />Mr. Olson said that the reason the right-of-way was not <br />taken from his property is because he does not r.se the road. He <br />said that his access is off of North Arm Drive. He said that <br />there is no reason for his land to be used for that road. <br />Mabusth explained to Mr. Olson that if he ever does <br />subdivide his property, the City will ask for a dedication of <br />right-of-way. <br />Mr. Olson said that he will deal with that when he decides <br />to subdivide. <br />Mabusth advised Mr. Olson that even though he does not use <br />North Arm Lane, the City would still ask for 17' of right-of-way <br />because the new lot created from his property would be served by <br />North Arm Lane. <br />Cohen asked if there was anything that could be done if the <br />City decides to take the 17' with this subdivision? <br />j