CC MINUTES 04221986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_3_ 2. Failure .to require the filing of a plat does not interfere with the purposes • of Section, 330.61 . In approving .the necessary variances in conjunction with the subdivision, the Council finds, as did the Planning Commission, that: 1 . No calls either for or against the proposal had been.received by staff either prior to the April 15th Planning Commission.hearing or the Council consideration April 22nd. 2. Lots less than 60 feet wide already exist in the Village and in that particular . neighborhood, construction of at least eight lots with similar widths- had been allowed by the City, which the Commission and .Council both perceived. would bring the. proposed Lot "A" well within the mainstream of City lots. The Council finds further that: 1 . The three questions required by statute to be answered in the affirmative had been done so with this proposal , including the fact that, because only a 60 foot 'wide lot is available to the applicants in that area for this. development, a strict application of the ordinance would create a hardship for the owners 'who would be .lef t with an unbui'ldable parcel . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Johnson said he concurred with the action taken by the Council . • Commissioner Hansen reported the Commission had unanimously approved the subdivision without platting of the-property at 2911 Rankin Road N.E., perceiving neighbor concerns raised during the hearing were mainly related to the upkeep of the property and the type of tenants who had lived in the house on the property which had since been demolished.. The Mayor commented that it was his understanding that when Robert and Beverly Stafford acquired the property, those problems had to a great extent been handled. The Commission representative reported the Staffords had agreed with the Commission and neighbor assessment that the driveway on the southernmost parcel , Lot 20, should be constructed away from.the Rankin turnaround. However, he added, .the way in which the property is finally -developed would govern that to some extent. Councilmember ,Makowske said she had -attended the hearingbecause her home is directly north of "the property in -question and she shared the concern: about the safety ,of having a driveway exiting too close to the turnaround. , However, the Councilmember indicated she and her husband were in agreement with the lot split which would enable homes to be buil..t' on the .site-and,- if the driveway is built as agreed to, foresaw no difficulties with the proposal.: Mr. and Mrs. Stafford were present but did not join in the discussion. Motion by Councilmember Marks and seconded by Councilmember Makowske to approve the subdivision without platting of the property at 2911 Rankin Road N.E., generally described as portions of Lots 19 and 20, Auditor's Subdivision #377, Hennepin • County, .as requested by Robert and Beverly Stafford, 3916 Penrod Lane, for the development of two residential lots, with the stipulation that, if the driveway for Lot 20 is built to exit off Rankin Road, as a safety measure, it should be constructed _ on the Lot 19 side of the property away from the Rankin turnaround.