Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />September 16, 1985 <br />Page Four <br /> <br />--, <br /> <br />that now the applicant is back requesting a subdivision to create four lots from <br />two existing lots of record. The City Administrator indicated that because of <br />the controversy and discussions held regarding administrative subdivisions during <br />the past few weeks, and also with the Planning Commission's concerns, there are <br />some concerns with the Rauch administrative subdivision request by the City Staff. <br />The City Administrator further stated that the City Staff is recommending that the <br />area be platted instead of going through an administrative subdivision. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Greg Frank, part owner of the property, approached the Council and stated that <br />he had bought the land two years ago and tried to sell the land according to what <br />people wanted, and felt that an administrative subdivision gives the people a chance <br />to set down and discuss with the seller what type of land they want as opposed to <br />platting the land. <br /> <br />Mr. Frank stated that the platting process was very expensive. He further stated <br />that the subdivision they were requesting does not need any streets and further <br />indicated to the City Council that he guarantees they will not come in with <br />another subdivision request. <br /> <br />Park dedication fees were discussed and it was stated that 10% of the raw land value <br />would be charged for park dedication fee. <br /> <br />Dennis Chuba from the audience questioned Mr. Frank whethertIhere would be any re- <br />strictive covenants on the style of home. Mr. Frank stated there would be no covenants. <br /> <br />Councilmember Gunkel stated that she had voted against the request previously because <br />she felt the subdivision was abusing the intent of the ordinance and further in- <br />dicated that she would have to vote against this request also. <br /> <br />Dennis Chuba further stated that he would like to see the whole piece platted at the <br />same time and further stated that on the other hand, the City Fathers make it difficult <br />for developers to develop land because of the costs involved in the platting process. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle closed the publ ic hearing. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION <br />BY J. FRANK AND T. 'RAUCH. COUNCILMEMBER =SCHULD'l' SECONDED THE MOTION. <br /> <br />Councilmember Williams stated thax this subdivision would not involve any private <br />roads and stated that he felt a park dedication fee should be paid on Parcel A <br />and Parcel C. <br /> <br />THE MOTION FAILED 1-3. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT, WILLIAMS, AND ENGSTROM VOTING AGAINST <br />THE MOTION. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST FROM <br />T. RAUCH AND J. FRANK WITH THE STIPULATION THAT PARK DEDICATION FEE "'IN THE AMOUNT <br />OF TEN PERCENT (10%) OETHE RAW LAND VALUEB:S- PAYABLE TO THE- CITY FOR PARCELS <br />A AND C". COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDEDTHE MOJ'Ji)N.;T THE MOTION PASSED 3-l. <br />COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION" .. _u <br />