10-18-1976 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•vL o n TO:Dick Benson, City Administrator FROM:Hank Muhich, Zoning Administrator DATL:September 16, 1976 SUIULCT:Tom Ryan - 1060 Tonkawa Roail Subdivision (Preliminary) #1*70 Mr. Ryan is requesting approval to subdivide the 2+ acre parcel he recently purchased from Mrs. Parten. Both parcels exceed the minimum one acre area re<juirement. Ik)th parcels require lot width variances, however, as they would be approximately 100’ wide and 140' is required. TTie original parcel lias been assessed two sewer units under our 73-1 sewer project. The availability of municipal sewer has eliminated the problem of pollution from private septic systems on substandard lots. We shwld consider storm water runoff into the lake, however. Lot 2 has some existing ponding areas that we should try to protect from excessive fill. We should trv’ to determine the best location for a liouse and access road. PLAivaA'n CX)-!MISSiaN - Septemher 20, 1076 Mr. R)mii and his attorney were present. Tliey stated they were requesting approval to subdivide this parcel into two lakeshore lots. Some memliers of the Comiission felt that although two lakeshore lots would lie more desirable, neither lot would meet the minimun lot width requirement. However, if this were to be divided the other way, creating only one lakeshore lot, both lots would meet all code requirements. Mr. Ryan felt that two lakesliore lots were not unreasonable as it is consistent with tlie other neiglibors and tiie sewer is in front of the lots. Mr. Ryan informed the Planning, Coninission tliat he thouglit he was not appealing the 73-1 sewer assessment. After mucli discussion, the Planning Conmission tabled the matter and suggested ^h•. Ryan submit a revised proposal which would meet both lot area and width requirements. Later review reveals Mr. Ih^an purchased the property from Robert Parten wtiose name is included on the list of appellants on the 73-1 sewer assessment. CniP.’CIL 'OTiTlhr. - Scptenlicr 27, 1076 Council informed of I’lanning Coi:onission's request for revised sul)division proposal wliich would comply with ordinance requirements. l’L\r.’T'’C Cr^?'ISSI'T.' M'hTI - Octol'cr '1, 1)76 ^'r. 'Van, 'r. Crmiey and ''r. C. Joiiiison orcsentod the proposal, 'fter a lengthy discussion tiic Planning •"!oirussion rccor»^>ended denial of propose<l subdivision as iipnlicant could not denonstrate a hardsitio to iu'?ti*v a substandard lot fwiiltii) llanning Conj’ussion t!ic!i tabled t!ie pi'oyv^sal for two wi'eks to '’ivc* aonl leant ti to siL>’'it revisov'l proposal that >vould meet 7.oning requirements. t ir'c Jb M Tlrl •». .-------