08-17-1987 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Page 8 City Council Minutes August 17. 1987 6.12. & 6.13. Variance and Administrative Subdivision Request by Merrill Kampa/Public Hearing Mayor Gunkel explained that Mr. & Mrs. Kampa are requesting an administrative subdivision to divide a 10 acre parcel from a 33.9 acre parcel. She indicated that Mr. Kampa sold the property to his son several years ago but did not have the split recorded. The administrative subdivision created a need for a variance of a 99' encroachment on the 200 foot frontage requirement. Planning Commission Representative Kimball indicated that the Planning Commission voted in favor of the request and further that they reviewed the five standards and found the Kampas to meet these standards. Mayor Gunkel opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the variance or administrative subdivision request. Mayor Gunkel closed the public hearing. Mayor Gunkel stated that this was not an uncontrollable situation or hardship and stated the petitioner has the ability to conform to the frontage requirement of the ordinance. Councilmember Tralle stated he could not justify the variance since the property was being sold for economic gain and therefore. the variance was being requested for economic gain. The five standards were reviewed by the Council and the petitioner. Mayor Gunkel stated the petitioner met some of the standards but not all. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED BY MR. & MRS. KAMPA. The motion died for lack of a second. COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST DUE TO ITEM /14 OF THE 5 STANDARDS NECESSARY FOR THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE. HE STATED '!'HE THE VARIANCE WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN INACTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SPLIT WAS NEVER RECORDED. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilmember Holmgren questioned the Planning Commission's reason for granting the variance. Representative Wilson explained that the Planning Commission felt the property was unique and also that they likened the variance request to a previous request they had approved involving a 150' encroachment on a 200 foot front footage. He indicated that adding property to avoid the variance would only add cost to the Kampas for surveys. THE MOTION TIED 2-2. COUNCILMEMBERS SCHULDT AND HOLMGREN VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION.