PL MINUTES 07151986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- • 1 Outlots A and B were "being sited" when actually, their construction was almost 2 completed.. The owner of Lot 9 then -said he would like to see the City "take 3 steps now to require the tennis court lights would have to be turned off at 4 9:30 P.M. , to avoid problems later on" . 5 6 Elizabeth Heller, 3310 Belden Drive (.Lot 9). was present to express her concerns 7 that potential activities on the tennis courts early in the morning or late : , 8 at night "might disturb the neighbors" . 9 10 The Commissioners told the opponents of the subdivision amendments that (-a) the 11 applicant owned both Outlot A and B and had as much right as any other resident 12 to build tennis courts on his property if it was large enough to accomodate that 13 activity; (.b) the tennis court construction had been accepted by the City along 14 withthe project subdivision approval last summer; and (c) it was only because 15 he wanted to deed the courts to .the Homeowners .Association that Mr. Johnson was 16 seeking this subdivision amendment. Mr. Von Dell and Ms. Heller were also told 17 that, even with the transfer of- the 495 square feet of land from Lot 11 , the 18 parcel would remain a buildable lot with a 75 foot width at the building setback 19 line as required and over 3,000 square feet more than the ordinance required in 20 total area. 21 22 In reference to lighting the tennis. courts, Commissioner Jones explained that the 23 City had no ordinances to prohibit or control lighting, per se. Mr. Childs 24 indicated any complaints by the neighbors in that regard would have to be 25 handled eithor under the City's Residential Noise Ordinance or the Nuisance 26 Ordinance. The two neighbors were also reminded that Mr. Johnson had stated that 27 because of the costs involved, he had no plans to light the tennis courts, and, 28 since it would now be up to a Homeowners Association, whose members would be 29 directly impacted by the tennis courts activities, to put in the lighting, it 30 would seem reasonable to .assume that in their own interests- those homeowners 31 would impose the necessary controls on the use of the courts . 32 33 Mr. Johnson's response to ,the neighbors' objections was to state that his family 34 had been in business in that area since 1960 .and, after being wiped out by the 35 tornado, were now attempting to rebuild their property to something both the 36 neighborhood .and the City couldbe proud of. The applicant said as the owner 37 of the most property in that subdivision with his home right next to the properties 38 in question, he perceived he would naturally be just as concerned about lighting 39 and noise as any of his neighbors. Mr. Johnson reiterated that he had no intention 40 of lighting the tennis courts and felt badly aboutcsom'e of^�the�.compl'ai ntsl h,i's;lneighbors 41 made about his attempt to rebuild the area. 42 43 Mr. Van Dell told Mr. Johnson that he had always refused- to lead the fight against 44 the florist business, telling the homeowners who complained about the business I 45 "they were already here when you bought your homes". He suggested Mr. Johnson 1 46 should not take comments made that evening personally. r 47 48 There was no further input to the consideration and the hearing was closed at 49 9:05 P.M. 50 51 Motion by Commissioner Madden -and seconded -by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend 52 the Council approve the request from Rick Johnson, 3306 Belden Drive, for amendments 0 53 to the Johnson Manor and Belden Terrace Second Addition subdivisions, Hennepin 54 County, as follows: 55