Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 <br />ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED <br />said that had he purchased the property from Mr. ;'arten, Mr. <br />Parten could have granted him an easement to access that property <br />without the City's involvement. <br />Kelley noted that the Reiersgord property to the east has a <br />60' easement and that Outlot A is 40'. <br />Gaffron said that the prelilminary plat drawings indicate <br />the Reiersgord easement may be extinguished at some time in the <br />future. <br />Mr. Parten said that the future owners of the Reiersgord <br />property would benefit from the vacation of the easement in that <br />it will allow them enlarge their building site and build their <br />residence in the location best suited to do so. <br />Kelley asked Mr. Parten for his opinion regarding the width <br />of the drainage easement, 15' versus 30'. <br />Mr. Parten said that he preferred the 15' and felt that he <br />"was getting the total weight of the municipal government" thrown <br />on him. Parten said that this is just a lot line realignment, <br />not a subdivision. <br />Mr. Phil Asao expressed concern about the previous <br />discussions regarding accessing his property and the Deter <br />property. Ms. Asac said that he had given a letter from his <br />attorney to the staff. He said that his attorney's opinion is <br />that he has legal access all the way to Turnham Road. <br />Kelley informed Mr. Asao that access and his property are no <br />longer an issue with this subdivision. <br />Mr. Parten asked whether the Planning Commission thought <br />that the road configuration set up the possibility of a future <br />exchange that will be mutually beneficial to both property <br />owners? <br />Kelley replied, "I think you're awfully nice to do this; you <br />don't have to do this. Reiersgord should be here to shake your <br />hand, he's got a lot that he may or may not be able to build on, <br />just like Lot 2." <br />Brown questioned if Mr. Reiersgord was under the 5 acre <br />requirement and that was his benefit for partaking in a future <br />lot line rearrangement? <br />Gaffron said the question is, if there is a future equal <br />trade, then Mr. Reiersgord does not gain anything, except a more <br />useful area, but no more acreage. Gaffron said that Reiersgord's <br />property is between 3 and 5 acres now. <br />Mabusth replied that the lot line rearrangement would open <br />up the obvious buiding site.