10/23/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of both State statute and city ordinances. Further, the parcel of e land so created fails to meet the minimum requirements of subdivision and zoning ordinances. Nevertheless, when the owners submitted their application for subdivision, they did not include that parcel on the premise that it had been sold and they no longer had control of it. Upon submission of the application, staff indicated it would not act upon the subdivision until provision was made for inclusion of that strip in the total development plan. The condition imposed was, in part, to ensure provision of access not only to the property, but to adjoining land. Jim Bernhard, President of the Planning Commission, was available to answer questions. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Walt Mortenson, 1890 Tigertail Road, partner in Horizons Homes, spoke in favor of the appeal and distributed maps for Council. His position is that a property valued at approximately $15,000 should be dedicated with a possible consideration that it might be one person's loss and another person's gain. He felt withholding approval of the subdivi- sion was unfair, unclear, and unnecessary. He reviewed the maps for e Council. He felt this particular parcel had complete access. He said the Planning Department was requesting dedicating 220 feet and felt that would leave a 50 by 92 foot piece going into a no-man's land. He said it was a valuable strip of land that was being requested to be turned over for development that is yet unknown. He felt the strip of land could very well be brought together at some future point. He felt the first addition of the subdivision should be allowed to con- tinue because this particular street has nothing to do with access to any parcel of vacant land in the subdivision; that Park Forest Drive would stand on its own. However, the strip of land referred to in his testimony as A and B, should not be a dedication or a donation to adjacent property owners. He referred to another map which showed a suggested development. He also questioned who would maintain the parcel of land if the road were dedicated~ He summarized his testimony by saying he felt there were options and ways the problem could be worked out, but felt it unfair to withhold approval of the subdivision for one little strip of land that goes nowhere. Thelma Seufert, 1770 West 24th, spoke against the appeal, for herself and Pat Kerr, adjoining property owners. She said it was not known what would happen to the 50-foot strip as it cannot be built upon. She wondered who would maintain it. She said access would be diffi- cult if the property were panhandled. She said each of them wanted e 10/23/78--5 foB1