Laserfiche WebLink
COUNC?'~ CONSID'r:RATION <br />Minox• Subdivision <br />'~ February 6, 1977 <br />Request: Council approval of minor subdivision without platting <br />Applicant: Ernest Peterson and Richard Peterson <br />Location: -2111 Long Lake Road (Generally north of Long Lake, east <br />of Long Lake Road and south of Mississippi St.) <br />Discuss ion• <br />The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to divide a <br />single lot into two lots. The existing lot is extremely deep <br />and very large (over 2 acres). The subdivision would create <br />two lots each having approximately one acre in area. The sub- <br />division does, however, necessitate a variance as the lot widths <br />at the street and building setback 1:~-nes are not as prescrik~ed <br />in the zoning ordinance. This application fo.r a variance is <br />presently being considered by i:he City Counci?. <br />The ordinance requirements (Section 475:24, Subd. 2, Minor <br />Subdivision) state that in a case of small size znd of minor impor- <br />tance, situated in a locality where conditions ax•e well defined, the <br />Council may exempt the subdivider from complying with some of <br />the requirements of this ordinance. Past practice has been to waive <br />the full platting requirements and require only a. certificate of <br />survey such as the one submitted, when the Council determines that <br />the ~aecessary conditions for a m~.no?- subdivision have been met.. <br />This request would appear to be one for which the minor <br />subdivision procedure was iYitended, However, factors such as possible <br />property line confus-ion and concern for driveway location may raise <br />the question of whether this is really in a locality where the <br />conditions are well-defined. <br />The main argument for platting in this case may be that the <br />legal descriptions for the parcels created would be simplified. <br />Long descriptions, as in this case, are particularly prone to <br />being copied erroneously and obvious?~•, are very difficult to <br />understand. <br />,~ <br />We would note that on November 23, 1976, the Council deferred <br />action on the applicant's request and asked that the survey be revised <br />to show the lot subdivided in such a wary as to allow the alignment <br />of the existing and proposed houses. The applicant has provided the <br />