Laserfiche WebLink
1.1 /6 / 7 2 <br />(5) THROUGH LOTS. For any through lot, the required setback for <br />a single family residence and any structure accessory thereto, including <br />detached garages, from the street upon which the residence does not <br />front shall be not less than 25 feet. <br />Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its <br />passage and publication. <br />EVANSWOOD I1 ADDITION CONTINUED'TO NOVEMBER 20, 1972. <br />were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. <br />requested, Councilman Courtney's motion was seconded by Councilman Johnson and <br />carried continuing hearing to November 20, 1972. <br />REPLAT OF OUTLOT A, GLEASON THIRD ADDITION CONTINUED. <br />were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. <br />Affidavits of Notice <br />As <br />Affidavits of Notice I <br />a a <br />Luce presented Replat of Outlot A, Gleason Third Addition for preliminary <br />approval, noting that this is a gwo lot replatting of an outlot located at <br />the end of Aspen Drive, North of Vernon Avenue. Mr. Luce pointed out that the <br />outlot had been created in 1967 because it was felt that the property should <br />not be platted until such a time as the creek would be relocated. He added <br />that the creek has not been relocated and that the staff and Planning Commis- <br />sion have recommended denial of the plat: With the aid of the view-graph, - <br />Mr. Luce explained the surrounding properties and the location of Nine Mile- <br />Creek in relation to the property in question, and as pertained to the green <br />strip along the creek which must be dedicated for park and open space preserva- <br />tion and protection purposes. Mr. Gregory Gustafson advised that he has pur- <br />chased Outlot A. He said that, in view of the denial by Planning Commission <br />and in view of the fact that he was told at the State level that he could not <br />move the creek, he now proposes to build his house on Outlot A and abandon <br />plans to plat the property. M,r. Gustafson added that at the time the property <br />k7as platted in 1967, Mr. Akens had dedicated 50 feet of parkland along the <br />creek with the understanding that the creek kould be moved. <br />that at one time, Mr. Akens had a permit from the State to move the creek but <br />that the permit had expired. <br />any commitments of any kind relative to any filling or that any acreage would <br />apply to any subdivision in the future. Mr. Gustafson said that Outlot A was <br />valued at $13,000 for tax purposes and he should be able to build his house on <br />the lot. Mr. Richard Bastyr, 6504 Aspen Road, said that he represented the <br />neighbors and that they objected to any building on the outlot inasmuch as it <br />is the only natural spot in the area and they had understood that it would not <br />be developed. Mayor Bredesen-pointed out that the property owners have been <br />paying taxes and assessments on this property and that if the Village is not <br />prepared to buy the land, it should be prepared to issue a building permit. <br />Councilman Shaw noted for the record that 860 feet is one proposed level of <br />Mud Lake for flood contqol purposes. In response to a question from Mr. Bastyr, <br />Councilman Shaw advised that 100 foot setback is now required from the creek in <br />contrast to the 50 foot setback that was required at the time the &kens property <br />was platted. <br />was seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried, continuing the matter to <br />December '4, 1972, so that the Village Attorney could review his files and so <br />that the matter could be referred to the Environmental Quality Commission. <br />Mayor Bredesen reiterated that he believed that, in this total consideration, <br />the Village should be prepared to pay for the lot, along with assessments and <br />taxes that have been paid and the assessments that are forthcoming, if the <br />building permit should be denied. <br />Mr. Dunn clarified <br />Mr. Erickson said that he had no recollection of <br />Following considerable discussion, Councilman Johnson's motion <br />LOT 46, MORNINGSIDE LOT DIVISION .RFE~~~-TO,PL~~~..C~~ISSION. Affidavits <br />of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on <br />file. Mr. Luce presented the request of Mr. Jeffrey K. Owens, 4223 Alden <br />Drive, for division of Lot 46,, Morningside which would result in two 50 foot <br />lots. He noted that a similar request was approved last year by the Planning <br />Commission, contingent on approval by the Board of Appeals of the necessary <br />variances to permit the division. <br />the requestedvariances, that lot division had been denied. <br />that there are only three 100 foot lots remaining on the block. <br />that he proposes to improve his property with the money he would get from the <br />sale of the extra lot. <br />division, the Planning Commission had not acted-pursaant,to OrdiTance Nd. 801-A5 <br />and; therefore;-had'noe *taEefi. acticn in accordance with proper procedure. As <br />recommended by Mr. Erickson, Councilman Johnson's motion was then seconded by <br />Councilman Courtney and carried, referring the matter back to the Planning <br />Commission fo mak4 a finding'as'to why:tIie 50'foot lot variance should be <br />granted. <br />into 66 foot lots, with the exception of three 100 foot lots. <br />Inasmuch as the Board of Appeals had denied <br />It was pointed out <br />Mr. Owens said <br />klr. Erickson pointed out that, in recommending the lot <br />Mr. Luce clarified that other lots in the block have been divided