03-06-84 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3/6/84 PAGE 3 5. Public Hearings: A. Application from Mr. Springborn for a simple lot subdivision and lot size variance at lot 9, block 2 of Green Acres Addition. Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was called to order at 7:35 in the council chambers. Bruce Folz advised the council that Mr. Springborn attempted to purchase additional land, to eliminate the need for this variance, from the owner of lot 8, but was unable to do so. He also reiterated Mr. Springborn's reason for requesting this variance; the lot as it is now - with excess of 650 feet of road frontage - is not saleable. Discussion of the surrounding lots - some of them are less than the 1.5 required acres; and how the original platting was determined. Tom Hoffman, owner of lot 8, Springborn addition, stated this lot size variance would undoubtedly have adverse effects on aesthetics of the area and depreciate surrounding property values. He further suggested that the council take a look at the lot to see for themselves (rather than look at the map) why two lots would not be right for this site. Jim Buggert, 9123 55th Street North (property owner to east of lot 9) stated that one of the desirable things about the area was the larger size lots, and was a determining factor when he purchased his home. He is much more in favor of an open area, and does not feel the lot split would be a.benefit to the area. Bohrer reiterated his report of 2-8-84 to the Planning Commission. The lot size requirement in a Rl zone is 1.5 acres; so this split would create two non -conforming lots under the present code so each lot would require a variance for lot size. Also, referring to the septic system ordinance, it is stated that whenever you have slopes over 12%, the soils should be carefully analyzed so that there is not a possibility of sewage leaking out the side of the hill. The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Fraser stated she is opposed to this subdivision and variance. The principle reason being that the hardship that has been shown is, in her judgement, a financial hardship which does not justify the variance. She felt if the variance was granted, and the lot cut in half, you still have a corner lot that proportionatly has the same problem (too much frontage for the rest of the lot) as the one that exists now. To allow this, when there are other properties nearby who built with the understanding that the regulations would be enforced, is perhaps a greater wrong than what the difficulty which Mr. Springborn is experiencing. Eder stated his concern is that most often, lot sizes are to control two things; (1) density; (2) make sure that there is an alternate location for a septic system. He does not have a problem with a variance of this nature.