Council_Minutes_1976_06_28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 28, 1976 Page 4 Commission and the Council. The dotted line (indicatin represents 195 foot line;on the bottom it represents 235 feet "which is what the Planning Commission recommends. This is the only controversy. The only objection was where the property was to be subdivided -at 195 or 235. The only grounds specified in the motion as adopted by the Planning Commission were that the subdivision request of 195 feet would create unequal lots and they made an insufficient showing of hardship. This rational has already been satisfied'as'Mr. Johnson's property has already been subdivided at 195 feet. If the Planning Commission's position is adopted, you are creating the very problem which the policy of equal lots sought to avoid. The 3 major property owners in that area all want them divided at the same point. With regard to the utilities: all of the are in with the sole exception of the storm sewer. No one knows wh it is going in or what type; the preliminary -plats submitted granted the city a 25 foot easement to the east of the dividing line. That easement will put the utility exactly where the city wants it. Regarding insufficient' hardship there is a massive garden ;to the north is a tool shed and storage area. If the request "is denied she will lose the garden and the shed. Mr. Herman will lose a similar garden and steel pre fabricated shed which he had approval from the Council to erect just a few months ago. What is happening is an arbitrary adherance to a rule that really has no bearing here. This is a very rare and unique situation: 3 major property owners all wanting to divide at the same level, one has already been given it. He hoped that the Council would reject the Planning Commission's recommendation. MS (Baumgartner Pickar) that we approve the preliminary plats of Garnet Nelson and Charles Herman as presented. Councilman Baumgartner stated that the reason behind the equal lot split is to establish a straight line lot division. In this case it is not an equal lot split but the straight line utility line we will have. The fact that this is a unique area in itself makes me feel it should be treated uniquely, plus the other way would create a hardship. Councilman Pickar stated that another point that makes this property unique is that Long Lake Road curves to the north; if they wanted to subdivide it it may be possible for them to at 195 foot split. Councilman Shelquist stated that 1' years ago there were numerous situations where people wanted to split their lots unevenly and we established a policy of even lot splits. This was to put utility easements on a straight line, to leave access for future roads if they became necessary, and to facilitate convenience on those easements. Since the Planning Commission voted unanimously and also had the benefit of tr. Anderson's argument, and since they want to maintain thatpolicy, I am in favor of denying the 195 foot lot split. Councilman Baumgartner stated that the utility easement will be in a strai line. Councilman Shelquist continued: he can forsee when we will face the same situation of greater density many of the problems we have now is from the lack of foresight and planning in the past when lot splits were granted.