03-01-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 1, 1989 Page 2 CASE #89-02 (Cont'd) The Planner then reviewed the conclusions and staff recommendations listed in his report: • 1. A division pattern is possible that would not require variances and there is no apparent hardship to provide basis for the request; staff recommends the variances be denied and the plat be modified to conform with ordinance requirements, as shown on exhibits 3 and 5. 2. Commission discuss an access easement for the property north of this site; an equitable resolution at this time would avert future access problems. 3. The front yard setback for Lot 1 be established at 60 ft. , rather than 40 ft. , as discussed in the Planner's report under "Considerations - #5". 4. The Village Engineer approve the utility easements, site grading and drainage • easement in respect to the surface drainage from the rear of Lots 3, 4 and 5. 5. The three existing structures on Lots 1 & 3 be removed prior to construction on those two lots. 6. The park dedication requirement be fulfilled along with issuance of building permits. Commission and Planner discussed the application procedures for a Minor Subdivision versus a Preliminary Plat. Marcel Eibensteiner, applicant, stated the variances were being requested based on financial hardship. He explained he would prefer the lots be platted with the variances, however, he would agree to the proposal drawn by the planner. Eibensteiner did not favor provision of an easement along Lot 5 and felt it would be detrimental to the development. Eibensteiner stated he did not intend to purchase the property to the north, however, he had discussed purchasing the land and the property owner was not interested in selling or developing the land. Eibensteiner explained how the homes would be constructed and the plan to have the drainage swale constructed between Lots 1 & 2 to direct the flow to the west onto Hamline Avenue. Commission questioned if the property owners to the north had been advised of the proposal; Planner Bergly advised the application process does not require notification of adjacent property owners. Member Martin questioned if the land is abstract or Torrens; he advised the applicant may have problems when filing the subdivision at the County if the land is not platted. Eibensteiner advised the property is abstract, however, he would be agreeable to platting the property or filing any other type of documentation required by the City and County. Planner Bergly suggested the Attorney review the ordinance requirement and advise what documentation would be required for filing. There was Commission discussion relative to the developer and City responsibility for providing access to the property to the north. Several of the Members did not favor burdening the developer to provide access for the property to the north. Eibensteiner stated the property owner has access along Hamline Avenue and could provide the access from Hamline. • Member Winiecki agreed the developer should not be burdened; she questioned if the City was responsible for assuring access to the parcel. Bergly stated the ordinance requires the City to identify and discuss possibilities for averting potential access problems.