05-17-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELMO, MEETING MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T -4- f0r 6/7 83 approval 7. COLOSIMO PUBLIC HEARING - Continued Mayor Eder asked for a.poll concerning adhering to Cty policy for varing the requirements for creating a lot on an unimproved street and creating a lot on a private road. --Fraser reluctant to deviate --Mazzara - not familar, with situation or background. Whittaker explained the road access requirement, private road policy and the Colosimo request.. --Grace Colosimo - talked to Don Raleigh - not proposing to have this a private driveway - understood the non -dedicated right-of-way would have to be dedicated. Colosimo's have been maintaining Jane Rd. N. and their private road since 1979. Would like to continue to live in this area, but, cannot afford to keep present house. Want to sell and rebuild on this property - this is the hardship - believe variance can be granted because of hardship. Cannot afford to pave the present private driveway. Also, Mr. Maistrovich abutting property to Jane Rd. N. and private driveway does not want to pave the private driveway.(Mr. Maistrovich was present, but did not commentp --Eder - explained that hardship cannot be considered in terms of hardship to the individual, but hardship of the land. {-Grace Colosimo - what is next step - do not want to go to expense of platting and not get lot/road variance. --Whittaker - key question is improved public right-of-way off of the driveway/road access to the existing Colosimo home. PZC has asked if the Council will allow a subdivision with the existing situation. --Howard Springborn - owns the Colosimo driveway over which they have easement rights. Keeping road so to have the option of developing lots on his property north of the road/driveway. --Whittaker r explained that by dedicating this driveway to the City he would not forfdat his access to Jane Rd. N. as the area would be preserved as public right-of-way - it does not have to be paved in order to be dedicated right-of-way, --Eder - gave the history of property situation. Poll: --Fraser - reluctant to make regulation changes - --Mazzara - inclined to approve a variance - still like more information, but inclined to allow. --Morgan - favors approving the variances. Would do no harm to the dnvironment. Would like to see Jane Rd. N. brought up to City Standard - already 12 homes serviced off the unimproved portion. --Eder - regulation should be ahered to. This should not have been allowed initially. Not the same situation as when it was approved in 601's . Equability of hardship - land is not the hardship - any one else would have to spend equal dollars to develop 'r.a lot.. and meet the requirements. --Dunn - no problem in granting the variance. --Eder - again explained why the hearing was not held. 8. PUBLIC HEARING KEN SOVEREIGN —APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES: Eder explained that the public hearing could not be held because affidavit verification was not made on the public notices that were sent out,