Laserfiche WebLink
^,INUTES <br />City Council <br />March 8, 1984 <br />Jenniges Mrs. Timmons agreed that there were a large number of homes on Edgerton <br />Property with large lots. Timmons asked if it wouldbe worth removing the <br />Division existing structure so that two conforming lots could be created. <br />(Cont.) <br />Mr. Jenniges reported that the existing house is small, but sound, <br />and that he had plans to remodel this house. <br />Mr. Glen Gibbons, a real estate agent representing the estate owning <br />the property, reported that a split level home was planned for the <br />lot with 65 feet of frontage and also the remodeling plans for the <br />existing house would bring its value to about $65,000. Mr. Gibbons <br />stated that the estate was not in a position to tear down the <br />existing house or move it. The proposal before the Commission is the <br />only way the estate can come out of the situation. <br />Mr. Jenniges stated that the existing home wouldbe upgraded to a <br />standard home. <br />Mrs. Timmons stated that she can appreciate the situation, but the <br />proposal is not i.n the best interests of those people with similar <br />situations. <br />Mr. DeLonais pointed out that if a road went in on the back of the <br />property, four lots would result. <br />Mrs. Timmons asked if a lot couldbe split on the hack of the property <br />with a road easement to Edgerton. '°lr. Grittman stated that this would <br />create a home without frontage on a street. <br />Mr. Jenniges asked if the City could consider a proposal whereby he <br />remove some of the existing, house to meet setbacks and then split <br />the property down the middle. <br />Mr. Grittman stated that this would he agreeable if the setbacks <br />were met and the existing home met the approval of the 'luildinq <br />Tnspector. <br />Mr. Ducharme recommended that the Jenniges property division as <br />submitted be denied. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Herkenhoff. <br />Motion carried 7 - 0. <br />Haglund The Planner reported that Mr. Haglund has not made formal application, <br />Proposal but just asked for a determination of what variances may he necessary. <br />Mr. Grittman stated that in reviewing the prchosal, it appears that no <br />variances will be necessary as Mr. Haglund has 65 feet in the rear <br />yard and there will he sufficient setback from the high water mark of <br />Gerva1s. <br />Page -3- <br />