Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2016 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br />Commissioner Klebsch stated her concerns were still the same and had not been addressed. She <br />appreciated a buffer of trees would remain in place, but did not understand why there was only <br />two ways to build on this lot. She believed there were more options for the site. For this reason, <br />she would not support the variance request. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollestad offered to sell the lot to Commissioner Klebsch. Commissioner Klebsch stated that <br />was an inappropriate comment. Commissioner Schiltgen stated his agreement that it was <br />inappropriate. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollestad expressed the difficulty with building on this lot, and his frustration with the way <br />the Planning Commission had managed his request and was disappointed with the fact that he <br />has had to come back to three meetings in order for the Commission to make a decision on his <br />request. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson stated that the Commission has to look at what they want for this City, and <br />asked if there was a motion. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution <br />1055-16, a Resolution Approving of a Variance to Allow a 30-Foot Front Yard Setback for a <br />New Home at 7790 Eastwood Road; Planning Case No. VR2016-04. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klander asked why the developer was not aware of the easement on the site. <br />Planner Sevald described the differences between a major and minor subdivision and explained <br />the developer was not required to complete a title search prior to plat approval, but prior to the <br />plat being recorded. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klander questioned when the drainage easement was put in place. Planner Sevald <br />reported this took place in 1997. Commissioner Klander noted this was a private easement <br />between two property owners, and asked if the City had any role. <br /> <br />Planner Sevald affirmed that this is a private easement between two property owners. <br /> <br />Commissioner Love believed it was unfortunate the developer did not find out about the <br />easement until after purchasing the property. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson restated the motion. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 3 (French, Klebsch, Love) Motion failed. <br /> <br />Planner Sevald stated that five votes are needed to approve a variance, and reviewed the process <br />if the applicant chose to appeal the Planning Commission’s action. The Commission discussed <br />the process further. <br /> <br />Planner Sevald quoted a State Statute regarding when a motion for approval of a resolution fails, <br />and requested comments, for the record, from those that opposed the Variance as Findings for <br />Denial of the variance.