09-06-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1989, 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chairman Probst called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL The roll being called the following members were present: Chairman Probst, Members Dave Carlson, Peter Martin, Raymond McGraw, Scott Petersen, Dorothy Zehm and Dan Ashbach. Absent: Members Winiecki, Piotrowski, Curtis and Woodburn. Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Mayor Thomas Sather, Clerk Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Petersen moved, seconded by Martin, that the August 2, 1989, Planning Commission Minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #89-12; MINOR Planner Bergly explained the applicant is requesting a SUBD. , LOTS 2 & 3, realignment of a side lot line between Lots 2 and 3, BLK. 1, DALSOREN Block 1, Dalsoren Addition, in the R-2 Residential ADDN, MEL FISH, District. He noted Outlot A is already attached to Lot 2. 1975 GLENPAUL AVE. Bergly reviewed the considerations listed in his report dated 9-6-89, and noted the relocation of the lot line, as proposed will accomplish the following: 1. Allow an even exchange of properties between the owner of Lot 3 and the applicant. 2. Serve the interests of both the applicant and the owner of Lot 3 by creating more regularly shaped front, rear and side yards. • 3. More nearly meet the requirement in the subdivision regulations that side lot lines should be perpendicular to street right-of-way lines. 4. Correspond with fencing that has been installed in the rear yard. 5. This area of the City was developed prior to the adoption of present standards; the front yard setback and garage side yard setback do not conform with present requirements. The Planner pointed out the Commission should consider that the pavement on Glenpaul Avenue is not situated in the center of the right-of-way (as shown in the drawing attached to his report) . He indicated that when the driveway for Lot 2 was constructed it was inadvertently laid out generally perpendicular to the pavement without regard for the property line. Bergly advised that an easement is shown on the southeast corner of Lot 2 as the driveway was constructed partially on Lot 1. He explained the easement is proposed so that the present owner of Lot 2 can sell the property with a recorded easement, rather than to continue trespassing on the adjacent lot. Bergly noted the easement is between the two property owners and the City need not be involved in the procedure. The Planner recommended approval of the division as proposed for the reasons listed above, with the provision that a 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easement, centered on the new lot line, be provided. Member Martin questioned if the easement requested will be granted to the City. • The Planner advised the easement would be granted to the City. Mel Fish, applicant, explained the requested realignment is for aesthetic purposes. He questioned if the City Attorney will be responsible for drafting the easement document. Clerk Administrator Berger stated he will contact the Attorney to determine the procedure for submission of the document.