Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Mrwns OF A riA\NDri a>nissio>j Mi*unNG ield February 7, 1977 - page b <br />Mr. Dave N^ynan, Attorney, representing ^^r. Peterson presented a <br />report by his Associate, Douglas Klint, regarding applicant ’s <br />"position concerning variance proposal.€e Zoning Administrator explained request as submitted which <br />included four variances. Also noted that applicant had indi­ <br />cated he v/ould move the proposed house location if necessary <br />to meet the lakeshore setback requiranent. Ifore engineering <br />data and sprveys would be necessary to confirm this, however. <br />Tract V, a vacant parcel, directly northwest of the subject <br />lot, is currently oivned by the State of Minnesota due to tax <br />forfeiture. Any proposed structure on Tract V would not meet <br />setback requirements. A combination of these two parcels <br />would eliminate the current problem of tivo adjoining siibstandard <br />lots. <br />Dunlap moved, Pesek seconded, to recommend denial of the <br />variances because the travelled road currently located within <br />the lot lines of lot 184 deducts from the total buildable <br />area of tliis lot and additional land is available. ?btion - <br />Ayes (4), Nays (0). <br />The Zoning Administrator informed the Planning Ccsmmission that <br />Council has approved this siibdivisionj however, after reviewing <br />reports received from Staff concerning the sewer status, the <br />Cojmcil suggested tiiis application return to the Planning <br />^%rmission for their reconsideration based on the new evidence <br />Resented. Original application made 2-3 years ago indicated <br />two sewer charges were assessed to the property (this statement <br />w^ noted and signed on the application by Ifr. Sidwell). <br />^finutes of the 6-8-76 meeting also indicate payment of t^vo <br />sewer charges as one of the hardships demonstrated by ^tr. <br />Sidwell. <br />SiAvell and his attorney were present. It is their feeling <br />that they made every effort to comply as required and have <br />relied on the action of the Planning COTmission and Council. <br />The mistake was found after final approval. To deny on this <br />technicality would be unfair as information on the assessment <br />was received from the City. Tliey have since gone through the <br />expense of preparing mylars and hardshells and have sold the <br />property as t^vo separate parcels. <br />Chairman Hannah stated that the Commission recognized their <br />problem; ho»vever, it is the feeling of the Planning Commission <br />that there is no guarantee on anything until the mylars and <br />hardshells are signed and a resolution adopted. <br />After some discussion IXmlap moved to deny this final sub­ <br />division because it is a new subdivision and does not meet <br />lOai of tiie ordinance. Tlie motiai failed for lack of a <br />►nd.W <br />CiARY PFi'ERSEN <br />3545 IVY PLACE <br />VARIANCE - LOT AREA <br />§ wimn <br />RI(3fT OF WAY AND <br />LAKES’DRE SETb.'VCK <br />(#219) <br />vl <br />I <br />♦ <br />JAES SmVELL <br />1375 PARK DRIVE <br />REVIBV PREVIOUS PROPOSAL <br />(#120) <br />M <br />-•'■/a