gr00090_000041_pg184 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 28, 1976 Page 5 Councilman Hodges stated that he looked at the property twice and the only thing is the precedent set by the Johnson property. Looking at this he feels there is a hardship, and grant the split at 195 feet. Mayor Johnson asked who owns Outlot A and Mr. Anderson replied that it is owned by Mrs. Nelson, the excess porftion is owned by her son. She will deed that parcel to her son to create equal lots. They will be willing to consent that this would be shown on the final plat. Mayor Johnson stated that what you are talking about is that if we approve the preliminary plat with the modification that that would also be platted, is acceptable to you. He replied that that is right. Ms. Haake explained some of the thought the Commission had when they divided the Johnson property. Mr. Johnson's property is the 3rd largest parcel and he does have a curve to consider. When he came in in May of 1975 it was before we established the policy of equal lot splits. He had a garage back there and we knew we could not ask him to take that out. He asked for a lot split behind the garage so that he could save it. He came back and asked for a major subdivision. Mr. Moscow came in and asked for a lot split, the Planning Commission was adherring to their ruling then, and he accepted it. Then we have Mrs. Nelson wanting to save the shed and the garden, when she has another shed and a garage. It could happen here as it has in Minneapolis; it is going to be difficult to adhere to equal lot splits with the rest of the community if this is granted. Mr. Anderson stated that the Herman property is what is immediately adjacent to the Johnson property, not the Moscow. Secondly, the reasons why Mr. Johnson was given 195 feet may explain why the exception to general policy was made in his case, but does not provide a basis for rejecting this request. The structure that Mrs. Nelson will lose is on a photograph (this was passed to everyone). Since the Johnson request was allowed the other two should be allowed, also. The jogs will defy the very policy that the Planning Commission sought to enforce. Mr. Moscow has already advised Mrs. Nelson and Mr. Herman of his intention to move. He would not have done it but for the fact that he is moving and he did not want to get into the fight. In summary, if they are not granted the subdivision request they will lose an additional 40 feet of their property. Mrs. Nelson wants to retain her garden and her shed, Mr. Herman wants to retain his garden and tool shed, both of them do not want to give up that large additional piece of property. They are forced to subdivide because of the assessments from Greenwood Drive, their choice was dictated by the 195 ft request of the Johnson property. MS (Johnson - Baumgartner) to amend the motion: that the preliminary plat be approved subject to including the exception for the Outlot A which is described on Exhibit A dated April 6, 1976, and also that the exception for Outlot A be incorporated as Lot 6 in the final plat for Greenwood Terrace and current Lot 6 will be Lot 7, and that the new Lot 6 lot lines will line up with Lots 2 & 3 and with new Lots 6 & 7 and that-the utility easement for proposed Lot 6 be stipulated at 30 feet, and that the other easements will be as described on the preliminary plat and the 10 foot utility drainage easement will be abandoned at cross Lots 1 -4.