Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-26 PC MinutesMINUTFS OF THG MOUNDS VIEiJ PLANNINa COMMISSION t~tay z6, 1976 f~ The Mounda View Planrting Commission wns aalled to order at the City F{all by its ahairperson Barbara Haake at 7;31 pm on Wedneeday May 20, 1976. The following memt~ers were present: Phyllis Hlanahard, Oersld Fose, Don t4aakeben, Paul Fedor and IIarhara Haske. Absent were: Robert Olazer, Nanoy Burmeleter, Robert Robsmari and Allen Zepper. The minutoa for the May 12, 1976 meeting were ~lmended as followst on the 1at page, 5th paragraph, delete the worda "on the other eide" and insert in lieu thereof tha words"wide lat• on the side with the varlanoes requestyd". Page 2, 1st paragraph, delete the words "suhm:.tted from" and Snaert in lieu thereof the vrnras "approved h,y'~. On page 2, paragraph 7, delete the narr,e "Toas" and lnaert in,lieu thereof the name "Fedor°. The minutea wer~e auproved a.s amendc3. 5 ayes ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Robert W. pruf~odt ropel' rt~volved: 8346 (lroveland 141nor subdivieion (2 lote into 2} y~.` Me. Haaka eYplained that the lot is 423.2 feet x 100 feet, snd hae a i' 1 aplit of 150 feet on the Knollwood side.' Lot bhat faces Orovoland ~,~~~ ie 2~3•2 feet deep. He now wants two lote at 211 feet deep x 100 feet wide. Tn diacUSSing with Mr. Bruflodt why he was rea~pearing before the Planning Commiaaion wlth hie previously appruved lnt ap11t, Mr. Eruflodt stated that he had,a buyer for the lot and that said buyer eaid that he would purcha~e the lot only if he could have addltional depth on the 1ot to oorreapand with the other lots in bhe area that were split equally, MSP (Fosa-61ackEUen) that we reaommend to the Counc.l.1 that they grant Robert W. Hrufladt~r~ roquest making the west lot 100 feet wide and 211.6 ft~et deep, the eaeC lot 100 feet wide by 21J,G feet daep with 5 foot eaeements alanQ both rear lot linea. 5 ayes Note; The reaaon for the request ef the evar~ lot sp11t was to make that lot mar2 aaltab2e because it haa baen a continuing thing. When the lot split waa origiually requeated in Slnuary, 1975, we had not set a p1^ecedent on our equal lot sp7.its, aarnet M. Nelson roperty involved: 8310 LonP LQkP Road Ma~or eubdivislon (1 1ot into 8) ~../ -2- Attorney James Anderaon repreoented aarnet P~elson in thin maYter. She is seoking a ma~or sub9lvlsion at 8310 Lonp, Lake Road. The paroel !~ is 5z8.28 x 405• The eubdivision requesL• Sa to divide the property with a line rcnning north snd south oo that there ia a larg~ lot, and divi~ion of the baok loto into 4 aep~rate paroels. The parcola are bound by Long Lake Rd and Oreenwood Drive, and the figures now requested are 195 feet from the end of the ripht of way. All ut111tiea exoept aewer are in the property. Mr. Anderaon's etatemen*: it ie easy to talk about moving a barn ~id moving good Ao11, but it is not very feaeibl~ to do that. 81nce he was not present in July aoncerning dividlnR lota even~y~, he asked if, aeide from oymmetry, ie an~~thing else aecompliahed with equal lot eplite. Yuwr ~oncerns are met reqardlesa of whether the dtvision is made at 235 or at 195• The r~ason L•hat they aro met 4.a that the three largest parcele of land are all seekinp to hava land divided in the same~ fanh±on. (refetming to Charles }fe2~mann also). If the three l~rgeet lots all have 195, he fea~is it is reasonable to assume you will not have to wor.ry about the symmeL•ry. Purther, all the u~ilitlea are in except the atorm ~ewer. Mrs. Haake had mentioned the poaeibility ttiat the sewer etudy may indicate that ih ahould run narth and south, As far ao Mra. Nelson and rtr. Hermann nre concerned, the village can maintain draina~5e easement rights at 235• A~: the moment of its acceptance the easement is dedioated. They would be happy to give the v111age that easement. Mrs. Nelson anC Mr. Hermann are ve.ry reluatant to pnrt with that particular piece of property, and there seem to be ;-~~ no compelling public policles that would draw any disbinetions between ; 235 feet and 195 feeY, as they ha.ve requested. Nanay Burmeiater arrived at 8:1Q pm. Mr. Anderson ecntinued: the thinga that Mra. Nelson a,^e ~oiloeim2d about ia ownerahip o° the land and where it is subdivided.. The drainage ditch can be put in, etc.; the approval of the pl~t would aESUre the village~s right. Steve Rooe, Building Inspector, stated that we az~e speaking of a aurfaae dz•aine.Re diLnh in a line. At preaent, if we allovr this p.lat to be recorded, the surface drainaqe ditch now will hsve to be removed to make Lota 3& 4 build~.ble. Mr. Anderson stated thet the drainage ditch through her garden ia acceptable to Mrs. Nelson. Ms. Haake stated that there is a possibility that a road could g~ down the center. in the future. If the lots are 195 you will put the onus nn the peo~le that have 2~10 Yoot lots. Mr. Anderson stated that riPht now they w~uld be willing to take that risk. At some point this Commisaion for the. C1ty of Mounds View has to balance future concerns and best inte7~eete. hiy clienta have livad on this land for 90 years. What he ie suggesting ie thaC you have no inclination for .s ruad within the next 2C or 30 years, and under those facts and circumatancea a balance test might be more appropriate. Ms. Haake replied that wa ara a Planning Commission and we do not ~~J want tu opera*.e on hindslght. -3- Me. }iaake oontinued: the future ~taners will be glaci to 1<now that wo thought of them in our planning. ~ Mr. Andereon etabed that hia elient will loae her senee of owninh propei~ty, of having powen over her oti^.n property. They will go 90~ af the way and happily conaede that easement whioh 1.s the only immeditsL•e conoern, but they aennot underetand that they have to ~e11 thair proporty beoauee there is a poaeibility that a road may have to be put down the middle af their lote. Mr. Fose explained that this is better overall Planning for the oommunity. Mr. Anderson atated that this does not malco nenso whe,e you have the three largeet paraels of land, if granted, all equally subdivided. Me.Haake stated that other people in the aommunity have hnd the asme canoerne--they have had to have equal lot eplits. What do you eay to them7 Mr. Anderaon 6tated that if the Ingwald Johneon lot had not been dicj~ed at 195 he could not say that. Ms. Hsalee atated that viith regard to Mr. Dtoscow--the oity est a preceZent a!~d we told him we had to dc it. Mz~. Anderson stated that he hes troublc recogr~izing the desire to divide luts eq4~ally when they are going to mest everyone ~f your ooncerns with the aole exception that la far removed in 81me, There are tlmes when the Commisaion has ari equal duty to look at eaah individual situation. Mr. Fedpr atated Chat we eit up here with a general policy whioh has applied for over a yPar, except in real hardship cases. X cannot see a real hardship here. Mr. Johnson~s real hardehip wse his garage. ~ Mr. Ander.son asked if the garage te worth more Chnn the ~arden end the barn? While you say that you apply it evenly--the fact that there Ss even one exception statea Chat you msde a value ~udgment. What you are eaying 1s the ba:•n and the gnrden ia not worth sa much tu Mrs. Nelson as the garage is Eo Mr. Johneon. Mr. Foee stt~tcad Cha.t vie hsve never aonsidered. tC,e gnrden as a t~nrdah±p. Thc anewai• Lu tha barn Sa that it is no longer esaential-- it is not that mueh of e hardahip. A barn is no longer a neceoeiL•y in thia communlty where a gsrage 1s. Mn Burmeiater stated that the bar.n and ahed are used for stoxage only nnd there Sa e garage that is ~uet used for one cax•. Mr. F'edor staL•ed that everytime we grant a variance we have somonne who wante th~ same variance with even leso hardship. We grantefl Mr. Johnson his variance for hia g[ti•age--now if we did it it would Ue f~r a shed, barn and garden--in two weeks it would be aomethiiig else. How fsr do we go7 ~4r. Hermi3nn empha~3zed that his building has more value than Johnson's garage. Mr. Andereor~ atated that tney were not being'realistic. If y~~u grant Lhe request of these property owners is someone on the other siSe of town aay this ia a prec°dent? Mr. Foss aske~l ,~l;ut hia thinking was as far as the dralnage easement goes? If ti~e wenL to equal lot aplits as opposed to Yrhat you request. He asked Mr. Rose if he foresaw any problems7 Mr. Rose stated that it is always 15ast in ti~e city's interest to keep ul~ utility easementa and p1•operty lines in the sama place--it ia ..~ more economical for the ctby if we c¢n keep the 7.inea strai~ht. V ~i,~~:,;... `~~ Mr. Anderoon nt,ated that Mrs. NelAOn snd htr. Hermann are willtn~ to eCipulate i.n wrlting, Sf their prelimSnary plat is aperoved, that <,,.~~_: in addition to bhe easement they will assume the er.pen3e of removing any strueture that 1s in the Way of putCing in a flraina~e dlteh. Ms. Nelson aaid that );ad ahe known that the line had to be where bhe eleotrie lines are she would never he.ve given them the easement. Mr. Andereon bhen oaid that the key element is that ttone of ti~eae oonoerna exiet v:ith reepect tn the5e pieoes of property „ all ut121ties ere in mith the exception of the storm setver, A1r~. Hermann and Mrs. Nelnon otill approve aome arranp,ement, all of the Cactoro that you are voioin~ ne va11d concerna might be real with reapeat to other peop:le, but there io no ~ossihility of any diffiaulty ariein(+, from thia aubdivision. Dis. H?.snehard enid that as a Planninp, Commiaeion we have Y,p deal in abstracte. Every L•ime we vary a poli'oy we Just actually rewrit~ the whole policy. We must think of the entire r,i,ty. t4r. Anderson replled that tho concern fnr the oity lo not go1nP to be impaired by granLing thr, subdivl.nion requeet here. It wae further stated that both bhe barn, snd gardeti will be lost if tha lot spli.t Eoea further east. Ms. tfaake etated thaC the request ie to ereste 7 lots, north Lot 1 facing 6reenwood Drive to be 195 x 97, Loc 2 195 x 97, Lot 3 195 x 109, Lot 4 195 x 102, Lot 5, H~hieh is fanin~ Long Leke Rd, the eouth lot, r--~ would be 245 x 102, Lot 6 would be 2~~4 x 109 and Lot ~ would be 194 x ~ ~ 244. They maintain that the drainage easement could still be given ~ 230 feeb in from either road. Any ahede or anythin~ in the way would t,e removed. , F13P (Fedor-Burmaisber) ta reaommend to the Council that they deny the ma~or subdlvinion of Ciarnet M. Nelson, 8310 Long Lake Road, beosuse of its uneqisal lot apllte. Mr. Fedor fur2her sCa4•ed that he could 3ee no hardship in this »articular eubdivlsion and no other reaeon why we should go against our e:ciating policy of equaY loL• splitrt. 6 a,yea Charles Hermann ~roper'~y-n~d; $360 Lonp; Lake Road Me,]or aubdivi~~ion (:t lot into 4) Ms. Hsake explained bhat Mr, fiermann~s requeet is for a me,ior subdivision in which he would like to split hie one lot into p. She aeked Mr. Hzrmann to state hia reasons for having the epllt. Mr. HermBnn stated that he has a new ga~den building that waa ~uat put on a concrete al building he uaes for ~torage. Me. Iiaake stated that the parcel ia now ~t98 "'~ make j lots that would face breenwood Drive ~`J would be 85 x 195 and the 3aC lot would be Long Lake Rd w111 be 250 x 3~3• that he would loae, a 3b, and an additional x 250. Your request is to 85 x 195,(centex lot 80 x 195.) The lot facing -5° Steve Rose stated that he oheoked the property at 8350 I;nng Lake Road, ~ &nd aC 1g5 feet bhey would loae moat of the p,arden no matter what, , and it ap~rsrod that the motal building would be in his property on 4n equal lot aplit, MsP (Blanoherd-FOSa) that we reoammend to the C~unoil, that in p,o1nA ~ with ou4+ poliay of equal lot eplits, and aeeing no hardehip in this j case, that they deny the petiticn of Charlea Hermann, 03fi0 Long Lake i Road, for a ma~or aubdiviaion. 1 6 ayee ! Meurice 3hanke ~ roper y nvo ved: 0315 Spring Lako Road Minoi~ sabdiviaion (1 lot Snto 2) ~ Ms. Haake explaine~ that the parcel is 90 x 42@.2. The request ie for a Sot facing 3prtng Laka Road 9Q x 218.1, the 1ot faotng Hnollwood Drive to be 90 x 210.1. Mr. Shanke~ otated that the two garagea were there when they moved in und are naw used for etorage. The screen hquse was Lui1t in 19y3. Me. t{agke said that thia ie a request fus> an oven lut erlit snd It doea follow back lot lines, MSP (Hlanchard-Foss) to recommend to the Counoil bhst they approve the minor subdivision of Maurice Shankey, 8315 Spring Lake Road, the west lot would be 218 x 90 and the east lot would be 210 x 90, /'~ with a 5 foot uti'_:ty easement on the back lot lines. ~'"'~ 6 ayes David C. Fiedler roperty nvolved: 8040 Esstwood Dr, Minor aubdiv3sion ( 1 lot into 2) Mr. Fiedler~a existin~ lot ia 16q x 231. MSP (Foos-Mackebenl to recommand ~o the Ccuncil theL• they gxant tl:e minor suhdiviaion request of David C. Fiedler, 8040 E~stwoad Dr., making one lct into two squal lo~s 82k.x 231. 6 e~es LeRoy Johnaon ~roperLy~volved: 8336 Spring Lake Raad bleJor subdivision (1 lot into 3) The request Ss on'a parcel 1~4 x 350, He wouLd like to create 3 lota with 2 lotes f'aeing Pleasant Vie?; ~_•1ve beinp, 97 x 127, ti~e remaining lot facing 3Fring Lake Road on the eaet would be T74 x 223• Mr. Fosa told Mr. Johnson that he felt if he was going to e~ll these. lota he would get more money if they were made eomewhat deeper. Ma. Naake told him that if he went to 140 he would have a more ~lesirable ,""~'', lot, and if he wants them to do thet thcy will do so. ~~ Mr. Johnson said that he would gc, 130 but that Hould be the 11mit. -G- MSP (Foss-Hlhnohard) that we recommend to the Council that they .~ approve the LeRoy Johneon, 8336 Spring Lake Road, subdivision,request creating twq additional lots meaeuring 87 x 12q fronting Pleaoant View Dr1ve and that the playhouse be removed bei'ore ti~e ft.nai piat Ss ~pproved. The remaining lot, where the realdence Ss on Lonq Lake Road~ would be 223 x 174. 6 ayee Mr. Fedor atated that the reae~ns rnr the approval of this internal 2ot aplit w8s that the raAd aurved in front of the property and it ie impoaelble to hnvo even back lot lines and with this unequal lot split the linea were bettar than iP it were en equal lot eplit. Mr. Johnson le going to appear before the PlanninP, Commiasion with a preliminary plat followin~ our reaommended s~proval motion prevSousiy ata~ed. W. E. Hos~e~n u_i~~s~t rot~perty nvo ved: 8380 Spring Zake ftoad Ma~or 5ubdivision (2 lota into 6) The request ie for a eplit on the east eide of Pleasant View into 3 equul lots and one other lot facing Spring liake Road;on the west side of Ple~sant View there will be one extra lot. The {+arr,el ~0 0e purchasad wi11 be determined by the de~th of the lots. ~ Now they are interested in how the baok lot line ta the east of Pleasant View w111 be. But they do need a decieion this eve~ing on the depth of the lota. The conaensue of the Planning Commiasion wa~ bh~t Chis was sRtiafaoL•ory. Councilman 8helquist etatpd bhet he might consider that the same Planning Conunisalon and t'ie ssme Counoil do not,6lt forever so the vieao may ohange, In the'process of deciding you might consider thflt you can only homeatead the one you live an and tt is a tax advantaga not to do so,eo some decide not to subdlvide. The P.lanning Commisalon did approve in canuept the 133 foot depth line that they are usin~ on the Pleasant VSew side, Approximatel~ 90 x 133• We w111 hold thSs opEn unt11 th~ next meetir.g. MSP (Burmeister-Blanahard) to table Mr. ftasenquist~s request until th'e June 9 Planning Commission meebing. At that time he will preaent a preliminary plat. 6 ayea A1 Felgate Property involved: 80~15 Fairohild Non fee Ytem Mr. Felgate wnnta tc build an additional gara~e behind his home and brtng the driveway all the way around, it wi11 be unsurfaced initially ~ hut he will have definite plans to hava it Ulack to~ped. `~'° Ms. Hurmeister left at 10:31. ~qrvn.~. o..... . .< ....... ......~... ..~... ~ 4 ~ -.-, ,.._...-......, .:,,.,....,.. .,.,.r..:.. i. . .~...~:~.„..«. ~.~.rd.:*?' -7- The P1annSn~ Cummiselon disouesed Mr. F'elgate~s request ati ~5reat ~ length. MSP (Mankeben-Fedor) to ad~ourn at 10:45 pm. Respeatfully submitted, , 9~~ ~•~`°,~~ J ith 3wanholm Aeaording 3earetary , ~~ • , , ~,n , ' ~.. , ., , , ,:!. ,,,- ° _ ~~ ,., . . ~ ~; ~~7 ti , xa ~ ~~~~. .. . rv r ~ ~ ;:, ~ ~ ..~ ~ -~ r d: i . ~, .~ ~ . ~i i M,. a ~~ ati ~~ i ', k;:~ ti~ ~~~il~ r~ ~ . ~ f . .' , '.. . ` -a f a+ ' r n .,. , .. ~ . .rc .~ ,..,. w i ^ i.:~. . .. ~. . ' .~ A ~.: Y f ...i ~ ... .. f ~ I f f f 1 i 1 ., ~ ir ~a z~ .'t~~ t ~ ~~ ~. ~ k ~ Y . ~t i ~$ ~,~ ~ x, ,, ~f~ ~~a ~ .,~ ~ .. ' ~ eF'°_~' ~ i ~4k x ~e t P i , ~ p y .~ ~>'~4y~ ~ a ~v ~ f1 ~IP + 1fi xi*~ ~`t ~~~~7k'~ , 4' A qFYV~,CJ'V~ ~;t7r , ~ ~qr~1t~~[ tn1~"`A~l~Sf , f '1 ' §k7 G . .e_" ~ nPkP: {~" ~. ti~ ~~r~~S ~ tr 5l ~~~ s 3~5 i~ y~ r - . . ~ev t J i'~'r ° 1y{~e& ' - . F . K `ry ~ t~ , ~ U \ Y ~ ' 1 f iy ~SLT. ~. ~§ E:~ j' 4 ` a 1.~ d(J~ WYH )~i I f3 d 34~4b1'. 'i\ ~~tM ~! 1 ~~ _~ o " , ~ ~I~Yr~~w:4~~ k 9 '.~ '~'4~ ~d~t~.s i . ~~;° ri~r ~~ e 3 i??- fr i~ ~ f4d Pa ~Y t~ rl~~ x~ °~ ~ t..:ii, ~ . ... .: A F `t . , ' , ' ~ ~ '~ ~F ii ~ 1t i ' i c . , ~ .. ^ ~i d ~ s < i > ~ ~ . t ~` w ~ ~ ~ +r ,' ' r ~ ? - ~er ~ c 4~ t r.~ r ~ ' '~ i~ 4p`Yrt y~ rslrw r i s i l~ t ` 1 k , ' . f ii 1 .il ! )~~'.~~~~[ ~3i~; ~ ~~ ~ {=ItP~(4~~' i ~,,~ ~~ .~, „ .~ 'F~ ~r r9t 7 ~ "~~ ~~~S~z ~6T'~ ~ . ~', ;,~ , I `. ' i ~. ~~ i ~; 1 z ~:~ ~, d {~~ ~ 5 i~ ~ 1 ~~ t l. ' ,' ~ ' o,. .. Id ' r J e~ x . :~51 _., ~ f' ,: , ) i , 9 {t ~55. ~. :er6.: . ~., ~ . t::~ . i ~.t ' i ' ~ s n .' . . . 1 i' ~ l . ' `( { , ... . '.4 y ~~i.;' , ` ~ r ~ ir ~ ~ . ~ , . .,. , i r . w r ' ~ . . ~~ ~ ., t -~ ~~ . 1j .. ~ ~~ ~a•.. , ~~ ~.i,: .. . ~ v .. ~ '~` ~it ~ ~~~~ ~ . ~ ~ • ' ~ , ` ` ~" ' .~ - ~ ' : ~ ,. , , , a.. . . . ,,. . ( . . . ~~, , .. . ~ ~.