1977-09-14 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 14, 19)7 P89N 2 -^ MAJOR SU6~IVISION REpUEST OF_RAY GAL~s 8243 GROVELANO ROAU Ken SJodin, representing Ray Ga1e, explalned that some unknown factors had ~ust bean brough: to his attention regarding the subdivisioh request and asked that the dis- cussion be postponed until the next Planning Commission Meeting, Chairperson Haake agreed and asked Mr. S~odin if he woutd 11ke to advance to his next item on the agenda since they would not be discussing Mr. Ga1e's request. Mr. S3odin stated he would tike to advance to his ~ext itein. 1MJOR SUBDIVISiON REQUEST OF KATHLEEN AERG, 8470 SUNNYSIDE ROAD Chairperson Naake exptaine~ that Kathleen Derg o-~as requesting to subdivide the 1ot presentl,y approximataly 234' deep, fronttnq Sunnyside Road 513.7' and fronting County Road J 144'. The s1x lots creeted would ba ~or~nel~i7~ County Rosd J and Sunny- side Road 144' and 100' respective'ly, and four of the interior lot5 would have 82' frontages on Sunnyside and 234' depths with the exception of the northerly one whfch wouid have two rear yar~d depts ~f ]44' for 55,6' starting from the north, and a 234' depth for the remaining 29.34'. The sixth and most southerly lot would be 85.7' fronting Syr~nysfde and 234' deep. P7anning considerations inalude that all lots have required square footage and that lots 1 and 6 meet fronta~e requirements, while lots 2-5 have 8Z' frontages, which is 3' substandar•d of thc 85 required. Services have been proJided for the six lots on S,nnyside Rond. Extsting electrical power is Tocated aiong the r~ar praperty line and a 10' easement has br,en granted atong the rear lot line for utility and drainage. Additinnal dt ,.inage easements would not be required as proper elevations anL grading wouid enable the runoff to be carried to the street. A development agreement would have to be antered into at the time the plat is approved. Commission Member Burmelster asked Mr. Sjodin why the property tine on the stcond 1ot in from the north would have the ~og, with the additional 29.34' width, rather than extend the lot line back from the existing lot. Mr. Sfodin replied that the area was now two separate pieces of property and that the additional 29.34' would provide a nice garden area or whatp~er for the purchaser of the property. MSP (Foss-Fc~dor) to grant tne ma~or subdivision request oF Kathleen Berg and approve thz proposed piat of the Ber~ Addition from 1 lot into 6 lots, with lots 2-5 having fro~tage of 82' and lot 6 having 85.7' froiitage and lot 1 having 100' of fironta~t., sub~ect to the developer ~ntering 9nto a deve7opment agreenient with the City and sub~ect to a new pre7lminary plat being drawn to meet the City's subdivision ordinance requirements. Lo~s 2-5 are to have a 3' variance an the frontage requirements because it conforms with the other lots in the block. 5 ayes Cn~nission Member Burmeister pointad uut to Mr. S~odin that all applicarts have ele+ays been instructed that they should have a qreclse preliminary plat in order Co be granted a ma~or subdivision. She stated also thet she felt that someone who had worked with the City as often as Mr. S~odin shou7d be aware of the rules and follow them. Mr. S3odin agreed that the drawing be had presented was not sufficieni to rneet the City's cnde but stated that he had s~oken to Ufficial Rose and submitted tfle drawing ....i in urder to save the month it would have taken to have a new plat drawn up and pre- senCed to the Planning Cammission. He Also stated that a new preiiminary ptat wouTd be dr~wn up and submitted since approval for the subdivision had been granted.