Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />December 2, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Berry moved, Goedeke seconded, that the John S. Seltz request for <br />division of lot at 210 and 220 Woodlynn Avenue be denied, based <br />on the finding of fact that the eventual shoreline variance would <br />be too severe in this ecologically sensitive area. <br /> <br />Stokes stated that it was his opinion that the division was <br />simply before the Planning Commission, not the shoreline variance <br />setback. <br /> <br />Johnson replied that an approval of this would be recognizing the <br />fact that these are, indeed, buildable lots. <br /> <br />Moeller replied in his opinion, the <br />speculating on numbers at this point <br />building has not been proposed. <br /> <br />Commission <br />in time, <br /> <br />was simply <br />because the <br /> <br />Johnson stated it was her opinion that even if this building were <br />substantially reduced in size, the shoreline setback would still <br />be too severe. <br /> <br />Berry stated that, in her opinion, this was very similar to the <br />Haider case and would be creating the same problems. <br /> <br />Stokes stated in his opinion, you were limiting the owners with <br />respect to what they could do with the land. <br /> <br />Berry stated in her opinion, the City should buy it. <br /> <br />Stokes asked what else they could do with the land if they don't <br />build homes on it. Johnson replied it is not the role of the <br />Planning Commission to decide the final outcome of the land at <br />this point in time. She reiterated that supporting the lot split <br />recognizes the fact that these are buildable lots. <br /> <br />Dahlgren suggested that if the Planning Commission believed the <br />City Council should reconsider purchase of the park, it may be <br />more appropriate to table this request and ask the Council to <br />reconsider purchase of the park. <br /> <br />Berry and Goedeke then withdrew the previous motion. <br /> <br />Berry moved, Goedeke seconded, that the John S. Seltz request for <br />division of lot at 210 and 220 Woodlynn Avenue be tabled, and <br />that the Park Board and City Council reconsider purchase of this <br />area for parkland. <br /> <br />Cushman reiterated the fact that the Council has extensively <br />reviewed this area for parkland. She also pointed out that, in <br />her opinion, this development was signficantly different from the <br />Victoria Street proposal. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked for clarification of the setback criteria. <br />Janisch and Dahlgren replied that the ordinary high water line is <br />where the aquatic vegetation changes to land vegetation. In this <br />case, the existing ditch is essentially the high water line. <br />