Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 2 <br />«894 T.M. CROSBY Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to recommend approval <br />of the preliminary subdivision of lot line rearrange­ <br />ment for T.M. Cror.by on Spring Hill Road subject to <br />the following conditions: <br />1. Reviue survey to show parcels per staff <br />recommendation in Exhibit F-2. <br />2. The appropriate access easements to be granted to <br />the appropriate properties. <br />3. Combination of Parcels A, C and D. <br />4. Flowage & Conservation Easement over Parcel A. <br />5. Dedication of platted road would be subject to <br />any future subdivision. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the <br />process to Mr. Crosby. Item 4 wi 11 require a Flowage <br />& Conservation Easement over the wetlands area of <br />Parcel A which would mean a required description of <br />the boundaries of the wetlands. Item 5 is saying at a <br />future time when that property is platted down to its <br />most intense zoning use, we would require a dedica­ <br />tion of the existing roadways. <br />Motion, Ayer (6), Nays (0). <br />#895 T.M. CROSBY <br />1240 A 1260 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD <br />SUBDIVISION OP LOT <br />LINE REARRANGEMENT - CLASS I <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />7:45 - 7:58 PM T.M. Crosby was present. Assistant Zoning <br />Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of <br />mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was <br />no o'e present from the public for this application. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted this <br />application is a lot line rearrangement. There are <br />two parcels involved, one with an existing house on <br />approximately .92 acre and adjacent properties total ­ <br />ing 2.01 acres. The request is to make the smaller <br />property a little larger and the larger property a <br />little smaller. The properties are relatively low, <br />in most places the ground is less than 5 feet above <br />lake level. Soil testing has been done on the south­ <br />erly end of the Pi 1Isbury property where they would <br />need a specially designed mound septic system to make <br />this buildable. It would fit within the setback <br />requirements and would meet the City's codes. <br />4