Laserfiche WebLink
~i,~~:,;... <br />`~~ <br />Mr. Anderoon nt,ated that Mrs. NelAOn snd htr. Hermann are willtn~ to <br />eCipulate i.n wrlting, Sf their prelimSnary plat is aperoved, that <br /><,,.~~_: in addition to bhe easement they will assume the er.pen3e of removing <br />any strueture that 1s in the Way of putCing in a flraina~e dlteh. <br />Ms. Nelson aaid that );ad ahe known that the line had to be where bhe <br />eleotrie lines are she would never he.ve given them the easement. <br />Mr. Andereon bhen oaid that the key element is that ttone of ti~eae <br />oonoerna exiet v:ith reepect tn the5e pieoes of property „ all <br />ut121ties ere in mith the exception of the storm setver, A1r~. Hermann <br />and Mrs. Nelnon otill approve aome arranp,ement, all of the Cactoro <br />that you are voioin~ ne va11d concerna might be real with reapeat to <br />other peop:le, but there io no ~ossihility of any diffiaulty ariein(+, <br />from thia aubdivision. <br />Dis. H?.snehard enid that as a Planninp, Commiaeion we have Y,p deal in <br />abstracte. Every L•ime we vary a poli'oy we Just actually rewrit~ the <br />whole policy. We must think of the entire r,i,ty. <br />t4r. Anderson replled that tho concern fnr the oity lo not go1nP to <br />be impaired by granLing thr, subdivl.nion requeet here. <br />It wae further stated that both bhe barn, snd gardeti will be lost if <br />tha lot spli.t Eoea further east. <br />Ms. tfaake etated thaC the request ie to ereste 7 lots, north Lot 1 <br />facing 6reenwood Drive to be 195 x 97, Loc 2 195 x 97, Lot 3 195 x 109, <br />Lot 4 195 x 102, Lot 5, H~hieh is fanin~ Long Leke Rd, the eouth lot, <br />r--~ would be 245 x 102, Lot 6 would be 2~~4 x 109 and Lot ~ would be 194 x <br />~ ~ 244. They maintain that the drainage easement could still be given <br />~ 230 feeb in from either road. Any ahede or anythin~ in the way would <br />t,e removed. , <br />F13P (Fedor-Burmaisber) ta reaommend to the Council that they deny the <br />ma~or subdlvinion of Ciarnet M. Nelson, 8310 Long Lake Road, beosuse <br />of its uneqisal lot apllte. Mr. Fedor fur2her sCa4•ed that he could <br />3ee no hardship in this »articular eubdivlsion and no other reaeon <br />why we should go against our e:ciating policy of equaY loL• splitrt. <br />6 a,yea <br />Charles Hermann <br />~roper'~y-n~d; $360 Lonp; Lake Road <br />Me,]or aubdivi~~ion (:t lot into 4) <br />Ms. Hsake explained bhat Mr, fiermann~s requeet is for a me,ior subdivision <br />in which he would like to split hie one lot into p. She aeked Mr. Hzrmann <br />to state hia reasons for having the epllt. <br />Mr. HermBnn stated that he has a new ga~den <br />building that waa ~uat put on a concrete al <br />building he uaes for ~torage. <br />Me. Iiaake stated that the parcel ia now ~t98 <br />"'~ make j lots that would face breenwood Drive <br />~`J would be 85 x 195 and the 3aC lot would be <br />Long Lake Rd w111 be 250 x 3~3• <br />that he would loae, a <br />3b, and an additional <br />x 250. Your request is to <br />85 x 195,(centex lot <br />80 x 195.) The lot facing <br />