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 />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 />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