Laserfiche WebLink
1 Planning Commission Minutes <br /> 2 April 19, 1994 <br /> 3 Page 4 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Commission should be aware of this. In fact,the lot line runs down the center of Mr. Dahl's <br /> 6 sidewalk,which is against the side of his house. Chair Gondorchin stated there is no change <br /> 7 in lot line,just in where the house actually sits on the lot. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Mr. Dahl had been concerned about encroaching on Mr. Mudek's property for his full 66 feet. <br /> 10 Mr. Mudek understands that Mr. Dahl's house is just situated differently than was thought. <br /> 11 Mr. Mudek requested that the survey be redone to be sure that everything is accurate. Mr. <br /> 12 Hamer stated that when surveys are done on residential properties, the buyer usually surveys <br /> 13 before purchasing the house. Since nobody in this case did that, the problem is surfacing <br /> 14 now. Mr. Hamer stated the example of people having lot lines strung by the monuments <br /> 15 when they go to build a fence, and finding that a neighbor's fence is actually on their lot. <br /> 16 Letters are then sent by the City to the fence owner asking that the fence be removed to the <br /> 17 proper place and a proof available that this has been done. Some people have simply given <br /> 18. the misplaced fences to the people who own the property the fence is on rather than move <br /> 19 them. Mistakes in surveys do happen, and lot lines aren't always where people think they <br /> 20 are. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Chair Gondorchin asked if there were any more comments. The Public Hearing was closed <br /> 23 at 8:28 p.m. He asked the Commissioners for their discussion. • <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Commissioner Horst stated he had reviewed the site and that it does have a unique situation <br /> 26 due to the extra 6 feet of setback,which only occurs on that block and one other block in the <br /> 27 City. The street is actually what causes the house to be out of compliance. If it wasn't for <br /> 28 the extra 6 feet, the question would only be over a 2 foot variance. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Commissioner Faust stated that there were two issues with the first variance: 1) that there <br /> 31 was no survey,and 2)there was no knowledge of the extra 6 feet of right-of-way. He feels <br /> 32 that this variance request is actually an improvement over the first. He would definitely be <br /> 33 in favor of recommending the approval. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Chair Gondorchin stated he does not feel the plight was created by the owner. This is a <br /> 36 requirement for approving the variance. Also, the redevelopment will greatly benefit St. <br /> 37 Anthony. The lot can't be put to use by today's standards any other way. He would only add <br /> 38 to the motion that the survey be rechecked to satisfy Mr. Dahl and any other neighbors. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Commissioner Makowske moved to approve the variance to send it to the City Council with <br /> 41 the original conditions plus the condition added here. It was suggested that the original <br /> 42 conditions be stated for inclusion'in the minutes as well as'the new condition and the <br /> 43 addition of the extra 6 feet of right-of-way which applies to all the houses on this side on this <br /> 44 block. • <br /> 45 <br />