Laserfiche WebLink
W ‘• MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED <br />Bellows said, "The access to that lot is achieved from the <br />west, rather than being served by a road within this subdivision. <br />If it is the intention not to use this lot as a buildable site, <br />then why cannot the lot be designated as an outlot?" <br />Mr. Taylor stated that there are other parties involved <br />with Lot 1, Block 1. That party is amenable to what is being <br />presented this evening, but any variation of that would require <br />their approval. <br />Kelley stated that Lot 1 is already served by a driveway <br />from the west. He suggested that a condition of approval be that <br />in the event Lot 1, Block 1, is developed that it continue to be <br />served from the existing driveway to the west. <br />Mabusth asked what purpose Outlot A serves. <br />Taylor explained that by agreement between the two parties, <br />the property line for Lot 2 runs along the lakeshore. The owners <br />of Outlot A kept the lakeshore and the portion to the west of the <br />lake. <br />Gaffron reviewed the proposed conditions fo^, Outlot A (page <br />4, A through D, of Gaffron's memo dated 4/13/90). <br />With respect to Lot B, Gaffron asked whether it could be <br />combined with the adjacent property to the west since there is <br />common ownership. <br />Larry Hanson said that there is really no need to do that. <br />He state.i that Outlot B is a residual piece created so MacMillans <br />could take title to the property with the caretaker structure. <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the <br />tennis court be removed. Johnson suggested allowing a specific <br />time period for the structure tc be removed, a realignment of the <br />lot line, or the construction of a principal structure. <br />Larry Hanson stated that actual measurements were not taken <br />to determine its location on the property. He suggested that he <br />be given the opportunity to measure. <br />Gaffron explained that the is5"’,e is not the location of the <br />tennis court, but rather that it wr,:..d be an accessory strucvure <br />with no principal structure. <br />Bellows suggested allowing one <br />structure to conform or be removed. <br />year the accessory <br />Kelley indicated that the other accessory structures and the <br />principal structure should be removed prior to the issuance of a <br />- 5 -