Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 <br /> Page 2 <br /> CASE #88-04 (Cont'd) Bergly advised the problem with subdivision of this lot <br /> is that the County has excess right-of-way, which is a <br /> large radius across the northeast corner of the Elseth lot; the actual paved <br /> surface has a much tighter radius. He explained the County would favor selling <br /> the land, but is technically prohibited from doing so until legislation is <br /> changed. Bergly noted the legislation is now pending, as per the letter from <br /> Ramsey County Department of Public Works to Mr. Elseth, dated 12-7-87. <br /> Bergly reviewed the problems related to the proposed lot split: <br /> -The adjoining property has a garage, fence, and driveway that overlap the <br /> property line by approximately six feet. If the affected lot line were to be <br /> realigned so that the garage, fence and driveway were on the correct <br /> property, the proposed lot division would not meet minimum lot size <br /> requirements. <br /> -At the location of the proposed house there are a number of Oak trees, <br /> approximately 6 of the trees would have to be removed to facilitate construction <br /> of the home; the applicant did not favor removal of the trees. <br /> -Surface storm drainage would flow across the front yard of the lot with the <br /> existing house; the lot for the proposed house is slightly depressed and would <br /> have to be brought up to an adequate elevation prior to use as a separate lot. <br /> Bergly noted this may present problems with different land owners. <br /> -Access to New Brighton Road is steep; it would be preferable to access from <br /> County Road E-2. An access permit would be required from either road. <br /> Bergly advised if the applicant were to acquire the additional lot area from <br /> Ramsey County, by purchasing the excess right-of-way, <br /> • e the <br /> garage, fence and driveway encroachment and realignment tofolot lines uld vproblem; <br /> also it would eliminate the need to remove the Oak trees, as the house could be <br /> realigned on the property and meet setback requirements. Bergly noted if the <br /> excess right-of-way was purchased and the proposed lot split was realigned, an <br /> access permit would still have to be obtained and a drainage plan should be <br /> reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. <br /> The Planner recommended that the City defer action on this request until such <br /> time as legislation has resolved the matter of sale of excess property to <br /> adjoining benefitted property owners. He suggested in the interim the applicant <br /> and the prospective buyer could resolve the other issues discussed. <br /> Eldon Elseth, owner of the property at 1960 W. County Road E-2, requested the <br /> City not defer action at this time, to facilitate the sale of the property. <br /> John Robinson, applicant, stated he would prefer a decision at this time as the <br /> value of the land would change considerably should the excess right-of-way be <br /> obtained prior to sale of the property. He stated he would continue to pursue <br /> purchase of the excess right-of-way; he did not favor removal of the Oak trees <br /> and noted the house could be placed in a better position if the adjoining <br /> right-of-way were obtained. <br /> Elseth pointed out the proposal meets lot area and setback requirements and to <br /> Postpone action would put a burden on the sale of the lot; he requested the <br /> Commission take action at this time. <br />. Planner Bergly advised the proposal meets minimum standards without considerin <br /> the encroachments and there will be encumbrances until the encroachments are g <br /> resolved. <br />