Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />December 2, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Johnson, Berry, Stokes, DeBenedet, Goedeke and <br />Moeller. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Capp stated for the record before he left the meeting, that it <br />was his opinion that a number of Mr. Edwards' trees were actually <br />on his lot. <br /> <br />Planning File 1813 <br />John S. Seltz request for division of lot at 210 and 220 Woodlynn <br />Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Dahlgren explained the location of the site that is basically 7.3 <br />acres. This would be divided into two lots, which include high <br />ground of approximately 1.2 and 1 acres respectively, of build- <br />able land area. Dahlgren pointed out that the City would need a <br />drainage easement and should have the proper land dedicated, with <br />the proper cul-de-sac off Woodlynn Avenue. <br /> <br />Dahlgren also pointed out that at the time this development moved <br />forward, a shoreline variance would be required. He stated that <br />the Planning Commission should recognize that by dividing these <br />lots, the Planning Commission is recognizing the fact that the <br />lots would be buildable. <br /> <br />Mr. Seltz stated his concern with respect to the variances if he <br />were able to divide the land and then not be able to obtain the <br />shoreline variances. <br /> <br />Stokes asked as to whether one of the parcels wouldn't be land- <br />locked. Janisch pointed out how the minimum frontage on the <br />street was established. <br /> <br />Johnson asked where the home would be placed. <br />roughly thirty feet back from the high water mark, <br />require a forty-five foot variance. <br /> <br />Seltz <br />which <br /> <br />stated <br />would <br /> <br />Goedeke asked if the driveway to the rear would be taken out of <br />the total building area. Seltz replied that it would. <br /> <br />Berry asked Cushman as to whether the Council considered the <br />shoreline setback limitations when it decided not to purchase <br />this area for parkland. Cushman replied that the City did not <br />wish to buy the parkland because it simply was not deemed in the <br />best interest of the City, and was not the best land available. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that he was very surprised that the City did not <br />purchase this for a park. <br /> <br />Cushman again <br />analyzed, and <br />requested. <br /> <br />pointed out that it was carefully weighed <br />the City cannot purchase all parkland that <br /> <br />and <br />is <br />