Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1771 <br />October 14, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br />List of Exhibits - <br />A - Application <br />B - Applicants' Addendum <br />C “ Property Owners List <br />D - Plat Map <br />E - Council Minutes 7/26/76 <br />F - North Arm Estates, Second Addition <br />G - Planning Commission Minutes 2/20/90 <br />H - Council Minutes 3/12/90 <br />I “ Amended Septic Map Lot 1 <br />J - Conceptual Transportation Plan <br />K ' Map of Ownership, Right-of-Way, Access <br />L - Preliminary Plat <br />M - Weckman Memo <br />Peview of Former Subdivision Application (#1490) <br />The original lot line rearrangement was presented in 1990. <br />Review Exhibits G and H. The Planning Commission denied the <br />application based on the magnitude or intensity of the lot width <br />variance required. There was also the issue of right-of-way for North <br />Arm Lane shown at a 33* width. Members may remember the unique <br />history of this property. The 33' right-of-way of North Arm Lane was <br />created by the original owner when all surrounding properties were one <br />fact, although the City maintains the roadway as a <br />public road and has for many years, the 33' parcel is owned by the <br />property owners to the north, refer to Exhibit K. In an earlier <br />subdivision to the south, the City acquired 17' of right-of-way. <br />City had asked for 17' of right-of-way from the owners of the su <br />property but due to the impact on the septic, applicants sought <br />special consideration and asked that only 8 1/2' be acquired at this <br />time. The remainder could be taken from the property to the west side <br />of the platted right-of-way at the time of a future subdivision. <br />The Council conceptually approved the lot line rearrangement and <br />requested that applicants provide additional septic information to <br />confirm that^ 8 1/2' of additional right-of-way would not Impact the <br />drainfield sites. The applicants did not proceed with the subdivision <br />as the current owners, Mr. and Mrs, Markoe purchased both lots. The <br />Markoes have filei the current application because they will be <br />leaving the state. <br />Members may a ; remember Lot 1 as it exists today was incapable <br />of supporting anything but the 2-bedroom mound system in the present <br />confirguration. T’.is resulted from an earlier conditional use permit <br />whereby five of che property owners adjacent to the channel area <br />requested dredging and filling permits. Both Lots 1 and 2 received <br />the majority of the spoils from that dredging project. Unfortunately, <br />Lot 1 received the most impact because the steeper elevations along <br />the west side restricted development of mound systems.