Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 17, 1984. PAGE 4 <br />1806 WILLOW PROPERTIES <br />«811 JOHN ERICSON <br />1620 SHAOYWOOD ROAD <br />VARIANCE 6 SUBDIVISION <br />2. City to require underlying road and utility <br />easements over Outlot A. <br />3.Payment of park fee tor Lot 1 at $200. Park fees <br />for Lot 2 and Outlot B are not waived but postponed <br />for future development. <br />4.Plat road to be constructed per City <br />specifications up to library's private drive. <br />5.Wetlands within Lot 2 and Outlot B to be designated <br />in future plattings. There are no designated <br />wetlands within Lot 1. <br />Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). <br />John Ericson was present. Bruce Goldstein, attorney, <br />was also present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth <br />stated that this application is a request to divide a <br />legally combined properties in a half-acre zoning <br />district. Mabusth stated that both lots do noc meet the <br />area standards. Mabusth stated that Lot 3 (required <br />is a half-acre) the existing area is 19,500 with a <br />variance of 10 percent. Mabusth stated that Lot 4 is <br />16,200 sf or a 26 percent area variance. Mabusth <br />stated the lot widths on Lot 3 (100 percent <br />requirement) 35 percent variance, and Lot 4 lot width <br />variance is 40 percent. Mabusth stated that also a <br />side setback variance for Lot 4 is 3* from the shared <br />lot line and the zoning district requires 10'. <br />Bruce Goldstein, Ericson's attorney, stated that by <br />granting the variance would in no way be in conflict <br />with the existing neighborhood. Goldstein submitted <br />a petition from adjacent neighbors stating that they <br />are not in opposition of the variance. Goldstein <br />stated that the variance has gone through a public <br />hearing and no opposition was raised at that time <br />either. Goldstein stated that since this is <br />lakeshore property it should be considered <br />separately. Goldstein stated that the MN Supreme Court <br />has spoken to matters regarding lakeshore property. <br />Goldstein stated that in the case of Gerwin vs LeSeur <br />County the court stated that lakeshore property is <br />supposed to be given special treatment because of the <br />uniqueness of the property. <br />McDonald stated that by granting variances with new <br />subdivisions it would set a negative precedence. <br />McDonald stated that 16 new parcels of land in that <br />neighborhood could be subdivided if this application <br />was approved. <br />Goldstein stated that the hardcover requirements <br />would be met.