CCP 06-29-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(J"dr ,. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July I, 1987, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and ~otice thereof, Chairman Robert Curtis called the. meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Robert Curtis, Thomas Babcook, Peter Martin, Calvin Meury, Rick Savage, Dorothy Zehm and Paul Malone. Absent: Maurice Johnson, Scott Petersen and Gary Thorn. Also Present: Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki, Planner Orlyn Miller and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Zehm moved, seconded by Martin, that the Minutes of the June 3, 1987, Planning Commission meeting be approved as submitted. Motion carried. (Zehm, Martin, Curtis, Babcook, Meury, Malone voting in favor; Savage abstained) (6~0-1) CASE #87-20; MINOR Planner Miller reviewed his report of 6/25/87, SUBD; 3731 NEW explaining the applicants are proposing to split a BRIGHTON RD, MILTON ISO-foot by 62.5-foot parcel from Lot A and consolidate it with Lot B (as per drawing attached to report). The purpose is to "even-up" the rear lot line of the developed lot which fronts on New Brighton Road. The Planner briefly outlined the background of how the land was assembled; most of the land lies west of the base of the slope along the west side of New Brighton Road. The subject parcel projects eastward toward the existing Single-family lots and the proposed lot split/consolidation is apparently . intended to create a more uniform property line at the rear of the single family lots. He stated that the proposed subdivision enlarges an existing single family lot by more than 9,000 sq. ft., resulting in a lot 62.5 feet wide and 430 ft. deep; this is comparable to some other lots in the area. No variances are required. Miller pointed out that although the lots fronting on New Brighton Road are very deep, opportunity for resubdivision is remote because of fragmented ownership, the topography and lack of access. He stated that establishing the rear lot lines of the single family homes at the base of the slope is considered desirable and recommended approval contingent/upon the applicant submitting an acceptable survey to the City for administrative review and approval.' James and Carol Milton, applicants were present to answer any questions. Member Martin questioned if Lot B, being created, complied with current minimum lot width requirements. Planner advised that the Lot B would be below minimum width; it is being attached to Lot A which is a lot of record. He commented that with the existing development, setbacks and established lot lines, it would be hard to do any "trading" to get the standard lot widths; the area of those lots is 3 or 4 times greater than the minimum requirements in this area. Miller stated that the width is established on a lot of record, therefore, it was his opinion a . variance situation is not being created.