Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD APRIL 1, 1997 • <br />Steve Theis from Hennepin County explained that County staff had been requested by Council to <br />make minor alignment adjustments to reduce the impacts to adjacent property owners. Theis <br />distributed maps depicting Layout 02 and Layout 03 and the impact on property owners of each plan. <br />Theis indicated the maximum distance the alignment was moved was 8.5 feet. <br />Jabbour questioned the impact on the Larson property. Theis explained that not much movement <br />had been done, just some "tweaking" to get the best layout with the least impact. A substantial <br />amount of trees are still being taken. <br />Hanning expressed two of her concerns: 1) the berm; and 2) if more of their land is taken, they <br />wouldn't have a 5 acre buildable lot remaining for subdivision. She asked if the City would <br />grandfather this property in as a buildable lot. Currently they have 14 acres and have had a survey <br />done showing a possible subdivision into two lots. Gaffron could not confirm if a subdivision would <br />be possible without knowing more about the property and the existing wetland. He questioned if the <br />proposed lot line could be shifted to create a 5 acre lot. She was unsure if any more changes could <br />be made as they have already moved the proposed lot line behind the barn. She commented that <br />their property would cost the County a lot more if they could not subdivide in the future to have an <br />additional buildable lot. <br />Jabbour cautioned Hanning about the need for variances if they were granted a subdivision with a • <br />substandard lot. Councilmembers agreed the intent of the City was not to prevent a legal subdivision <br />but could not bind future Councils to the actions of the current Council. Hanning stated they were <br />not planning to subdivide at this time and were not prepared to incur the costs of a subdivision <br />application in addition to a park dedication fee and additional real estate taxes. Harming noted they <br />had discussions with the County regarding an additional curb cut to serve a second lot. The County <br />would not approve a second curb cut so the existing driveway would be shared. <br />Jabbour suggested the Hannings proceed with the subdivision process with the current Council as <br />this Council would act favorably to a subdivision in the current situation. Hanning commented that <br />they would then have two tax statements with increased value. <br />Moorse suggested the first step is to further research the property and confirm the possibility of <br />subdivision. Moorse also indicated staff will work with the City Attorney to determine if there is <br />a way that the City could enter into an agreement with the Hannings regarding a future subdivision <br />that would be binding on future councils. <br />Goetten did not feel it was fair to force the Hannings to pursue a subdivision if they were not ready <br />to do so. Jabbour suggested a preliminary subdivision where approval would be given and the <br />Hannings could renew their application until they were ready to formally subdivide. Kelley <br />suggested the Hannings work with staff regarding ways to proceed. is <br />