My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-25-1984 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
07-25-1984 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 3:17:11 PM
Creation date
6/24/2013 3:15:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />July 12, 1984 <br />Manes Property <br />Division <br />Wrona Lot <br />Split <br />Mr. Manes informed the Commission that he will be selling the property <br />to his neighbor to the east. <br />Mr. DeLonais asked if a topo would be required. The Planner stated <br />that he did not think it was necessary on a simple property division. <br />Mr. Grittman pointed out that in Exhibit C the suggested Lots 2 and <br />3 would be too small to divide in the future. Mr. DeLonais informed <br />Mr. Manes that the City wants to avoid any variances in the future. <br />Mr. Manes did not feel he would want to divide his property into any <br />smaller lots than what was shown. <br />Mrs. Timmons recommended approval of the property division as <br />requested by Mr. Jerome Manes of 2934 LaBore Road subject to the <br />recommendations contained in the Planner's report. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Perlinger. <br />Motion carried 7 — 0. <br />Mr. Mike Wrona appeared before the Commission requesting a property <br />split for Lot 1, Block 1, Twin Lake Shores and approval of a variance <br />on one of the lots as there would only be 71 feet at the building <br />line. <br />Mrs. Timmons did not feel that the lots created would be compatible <br />with the other lots in the area. A gentleman accompanying Mr. Wrona <br />stated that the lot is over 40 feet wider than the next largest lot <br />in the area. <br />Mrs. Timmons asked if shoreland restrictions applied. The Planner <br />replied that they did. <br />The applicant stated that they checked into this and spoke with the City <br />Clerk, the Planner, and another staff member and they were never <br />informed that shoreland restrictions would apply. Mr. Grittman <br />stated that this was an oversight on their part. <br />Mrs. Timmons pointed out that the DNR would probably refuse the lot <br />split. It was pointed out that if the lot split were approved, there <br />would be 40 feet of frontage on the lake for each lot. <br />Mr. Ducharme recommended that the property division requested by Mr. <br />Wrona be denied. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Herkenhoff. <br />Motion carried 7 — 0. <br />Page —2— <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.