Laserfiche WebLink
•3- <br />Comm. Gi~aer said that we endorsed the total concept but wu are not <br />necessarily Eor every poinC. <br />Comm. Poss qA~d that he does not look at the f,omprehansive Plan as a <br />~ Bible and if the tlme comes when it ~xeads ciwanp,zs ho feel~ ir can be <br />updated. <br />Steve Rose said that if there is a time that the Commission and tlie <br />Council wouid like to update the plan they can, but hopefully that <br />wouldn't be for a number of years as any chanpes sho~ld be studied at <br />length bafore making an update. <br />Keith Harstad (non-fee item) <br />Pxoperty invulved: located approximately 8400 block between Crovoland <br />Rd and Fairchild Drive, und <br />Property Iocated between Sunnyside Rd and Lon~ Lake Road sauth of County <br />Rd. H2. <br />Subdivision proposals. <br />Mr. Harstad presented a preliminary subdivision ske±ch of groperty dis- <br />cribed above, ar.d stated that he would like some direction. <br />Comm. Noss left at 9:50 pm. <br />Discussion was held regarding the two subdivisi~n nroposals, attd Ms.Haako <br />~I stated that the consensus of th.e group is that they +vant to maintain 85 <br />foot frontago. <br />I <br />~ Comm. Fedor stated that they cat7not g~ to 61 feet. nnd then louk another <br />I ~!"`, devoloper in the eye. <br />~~ 4`"J Ms. Burmeister stated Lhst he is still putting a single family home on <br />a lot with substandard frontage regardless of whether he is reducing density <br />~ If he has the land platted fo:+titownhouse development thet is the <br />~ direction he should ~o if he wsnts density. <br />Chairparson Nauke summarized: Mr. Harstad came in with two proposals: ; <br />I- regarding the progarty tl~at is at uppro::imately 8400 hleck betvracn ! <br />Groveland Rd and Fairchild Dr;ve. The Plarming Commiss_on had recom~nsnded ' <br />for that particulur pa~~cel 10 lnts at 92 foot frontagu. Mr. tlarstad's ' <br />Proposal I is a request for 14 Iots at 66 foot f.rontage. Proposnl II <br />was for 14 lots that wou13 comc 3n on a cul de sac off of Groveland Rd. <br />end another cuggestion by Pir. Hnrstad was for i'l lots at 76 foot frontage. <br />Mr. Harstad indicated that he was going to g~ back and may reappear <br />with a praliminary plat of Prc~posal II, the cul da =.ac propos~i. <br />Further, Proposxl A For property located between Sunnyside Rd and Long <br />Lake Rd south oE County Rd fl2. This Proposal A tvould give us 37 lots <br />at approximately an average frontaga of 62 feet. The Planning Commission <br />indi.cated that the 62 !'rontage would be inadequate Co the standards of 85 <br />foot frontage. <br />Purther: Mr. Murstad mentioned a percel purchased between Lonp,view ~rive <br />and Silver Lake Rd sout'h of Caunty Rd. H2. Tt is zonad business on <br />Si2ver Lake Hd and R3 on Longview Drive. lfr. Harstiud was intPr.ding to <br />~, meintai~i the commercial zoning but would su~;gest that tha R3 zoning on <br />~ 'ti../ Longview Dr?ve be redu:ed to ti-1 with 60-65 foot frontage. Mr. Harstad's <br />