09-09-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2155 August 15, 1996 Page 2 May 13th Cit}' Council Review On May 13th the City Council considered three issues: 1. Should the driveway be allowed to remain in its current location? 2. 3. Should the City help solve the driveway problem by allowing the acquisition of City property? Is the negative impact on applicants' property caused by relocating the driveway substantial enough to merit the City assisting in resolving the driveway non conformity? Council considered the hardship statements by the applicants and the possible concerns about setting a precedent of selling City land for private purposes. Council concluded that in this case it would be appropriate to allow applicants to acquire a portion of the City parcel to bring their existing driveway into conformance, subject to four specific conditions: 1. 2. 3. The portion of the parcel to be reconveyed should be minimized (it has been reduced from 25' x 100' to 20' x 100'). The width of the driveway, particularly at its two ends, be reduced as much as possible (applicants will be relocating the driveway slightly further west to eliminate any encroachment outside of the adjusted lot boundary). Applicants will bear the cost of any survey and legal work required related to a division of the City parcel and a lot line rearrangement. 4. Applicant will follow through with a lot line rearrangement process to add the parcel to his existing parce’. Council voted 5 to 0 to allow the acqaLituii; ...nder these conditions (please review the May 8th memo and the May 13th Council minutes). Discussion The process for transfer of this 20' x 100' parcel to the applicants includes the City reconveying this portion of the tax forfeit parcel to the County, then the County puts it up for sale to an adjacent property owner, of which the applicant is the only one.