Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission January 10, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated Staff’s review indicates this request satisfies City code except for a shed <br />that would be moved or removed from the property. He mentioned on the issue of consistency of <br />the minor subdivision, the overall development of this lot would need to be combined with the <br />church property or a new subdivision must come forward within a year. Director Ericson <br />explained the minor subdivision would need to be recorded in Ramsey County and the new <br />deeds filed to make it official. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated that what is before the Commission is strictly a request for a minor <br />subdivision. <br /> <br />Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek asked why the lot was subdivided in the flag shaped manner <br />with a 10.7-foot frontage. <br /> <br />Director Ericson replied the church wanted to preserve the row of pine trees on the lot. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cramblit asked who currently occupied the home. <br /> <br /> Director Ericson replied the church owns the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Jerry Kunz, 8284 Pleasant View Drive, spoke on behalf of the church and reported the house <br />is currently unoccupied. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson stated the Planning Commission is charged to not allow lots with less than a <br />minimum of 75 feet access onto a public roadway, therefore creating dead lots. He stated his <br />feeling is that because the applicant has one year to submit a plan for the property, it must be <br />highlighted that this is not a creation of a dead lot and that it would reverted back to the original <br />configuration if it is not adjoined to the rest of the church property or development has not come <br />forth. He stated the Planning Commission wants to be up front that it is not the norm to create a <br />lot that does not conform. <br /> <br />Director Ericson added it is not a conforming lot in a conventional sense nor is it intended to be a <br />separate buildable lot with access to a roadway. He explained if it were a stand-alone property <br />with no adjoining neighbors absorbing this property, the Planning Commission or City Council <br />would not approve it. He explained that subdivisions that create a landlocked lot where there <br />was future impending development have been approved in the past. He stated that <br />nonconforming lots have been created with the requirement that it be attached to other property. <br />Director Ericson explained that in this case the subdivided property from the lot on Eastwood <br />Road would be attached to the church property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller asked if this is explained in the resolution. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson replied it was and pointed out the comments on page two of the resolution. He <br />stated that perhaps it should be spelled out further. He said the staff recommendation wording is