Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Benders 5th Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves variances, final plat and rezoning for Bender’s 5th Addition at 19172 Mink Drive
Summary
Spring Grove City Council approved three related actions — a variance, final plat and rezoning — for Bender’s 5th Addition at 19172 Mink Drive after city staff explained an historical easement had functionally become a city-maintained street.
The Spring Grove City Council on Aug. 19 approved a package of land‑use actions to allow development of Bender’s 5th Addition at 19172 Mink Drive.
Clerk/Administrator Jana Elton told the council the developer, Nathan Sherburne, requested variances from standard plat procedures because an easement that had been used by the city for snowplowing effectively became a city‑maintained street over time. Because of that history, Elton said the subdivision did not follow the typical ordinance sequence, which prompted the variance request.
Council Member Trent Turner moved to close the public hearing on the variance application and approve Resolution 25‑30 (Findings of Fact and Variance Approvals for Bender’s 5th Addition Plat); the motion was seconded by Council Member Morgan Buckland and passed with council voting “all in favor.” The council then opened and closed a public hearing on the final plat and approved Resolution 25‑31 Final Plat Approval. Elton said the city granted permission for Sherburne to dig and fill the former easement area when the first basement is excavated so that work can be completed concurrently with building operations.
A separate public hearing considered rezoning of the newly platted portion of Bender’s 5th Addition from Agricultural to Residential. Elton clarified that only the newly platted portion will be rezoned and that the field to the south will remain agricultural. The council approved Resolution 25‑32 to rezone the specified portion, again with a motion, second and the minutes reporting the action passed “all in favor.”
The approvals noted in the minutes do not include specific vote tallies beyond the transcript’s statement that motions carried with “all in favor.” The minutes do not specify detailed conditions or a timetable for infrastructure work beyond the city’s permission for Sherburne to perform digging and fill in coordination with initial basement excavation.
Pending permits, easement reconveyance and any required inspections remain administrative steps; the minutes record that the city engineer’s WHKS memo summarized the variance requests and that the Planning and Zoning Commission had previously reviewed the matter.
The council’s actions are recorded in Resolutions 25‑30, 25‑31 and 25‑32.
