Laserfiche WebLink
-. <br />... ; _ _ <br />Board of Review -3- Dec. 21,1976 <br />Wickland stated that he felt the `request was only delaying the <br />time when the overall access problem would be`addres ed and. he felt° <br />this was an appropriate-thing to do. i <br />Partyka questioned why-the plattngregulationsthen say a, lot shouad <br />have frontage on a public road,. <br />Wickland noted that frontage on a public road would insure access <br />for service and emergency vehicles, but that right now he didn't <br />see a need for this at this 'time. - <br />The mover, :with the approval of the seconder, withdrew, the motion. <br />Motion by Wickland,; seconded by Brown, to recommend approval of <br />VN-168 becausez <br />1. The existing 30 foot private road on the northern City boundary: <br />line provides .adequate access for present use of land; <br />~. Requiring a 60 foot public dedicated. road- is not a prudent choice <br />for either the City or property owner a this time.; <br />3. A 60 foot roadway will come when. the property is industrially <br />developed through control of building permits or further <br />platting changes; <br />~` 4. Permitting creation of Tract B does not increase existing problem <br />for land-locked property; <br />5.- Tract B will be joined to main Herbst property at fulfillment. of <br />the contract for deed; an action that is expected by December, 1977 <br />Mra Swenson said that they might proceed with combining the two <br />parcels very shortly. <br />3.ayes.- 3 naves {Anderson, Bohling, Partyka) -motion failed <br />Bohling stated he hasn't heard any warrants`-from the applicant <br />providing. the warrants for the variance. Bohling also„stated that <br />he could not see how the request would help .solve the .access problem <br />or exactly what the. applicant hoped to accomplish. <br />Mr Swenson stated .that FTerbst only :wants-to acquire. title to the <br />property. <br />