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