Loading...
PL SUBCOM 05/03/1968 - 31059� �, l PLATS F� SUBDIVISIONS- STREETS F� UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MAY 3, 1968 PAGE 1 The meeting was called to order at 4:35 by Chairman Jensen. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Member Absent: Others Present: ORDER OF AGENDA: Myhra, Nagel, Jensen, Schmedeke Albrecht Engineering Assistant Darrel Clark Items 1 and 3 were to be considered first and followec3. bX 2 and 4. 1. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #6$-08, ING T. SIVERTS JR.: Part o Lot l, Revised Auditor's Subdivision 10. Mr. Siverts explained he moved into this location about five years ago, and the amount of land was five acres. The request at this time is the second split, He is requesting to split the whole section into Parcels A, B, C, D, E, and F. F is the public road and indicated as much for identification. His residence is on Lot C and his present access is off Central Avenue. Lot F was graded to road level, Lot D and F are at grade. Lot C has several buildings on it, and Mr, Siverts showed their position on the map. On Lot D, he said the State of Minnesota has an easement for access to the dam to maintain it. Mr. Jensen questioned Lot D because it did not have a street frontage. Mr. Siverts said C and D could be combined, and eliminate D altogether. Mr. Nagel.brou�h� up Lot E saying it is a large parcel zoned residential and what were the plans for access there. Mr. Siverts answered that there is 66 feet of frontage on Central Avenue. Mr. Siverts said there would be no problem to remove the line and letter D and it does make the remainder of Lot C a much more desirable lot. Chairman Jensen said there were two items to cover - one removal of line dividing Lots C and D and dedication of remaining partion of Tract F as a public street. He asked Mr. Siverts if he was going to petition for utilities and street improyements. Mr. Siverts answer that not at this time as hi_s system, as far as drainage for sewer, is concerned is absolutely ideal. Also, as far as City water, there is no problem, as his well is good. MOTION by Nagel, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Plats F� S�xbdivisions - Streets � Utilities Subcommittee recommend Plats � Subs.-Str. � Util. Mtg. - May 3, 1968 Page 2 approval of Lot Split, L.S. #68-08, subject to the dedication of the remaining part of Lot F for street purposes and also subject to combining Lots D and C into one lot labelled C. Upon a vflice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #68-10, THOMAS E. MARXEN: Part of lot 5, Revise� Auditor's Su�division 108. Mr. Marxen was present. The Engineering Assistant related that a similar request was made in 1965 by Kenneth Hall. The recommendation was not to recommend smaller than 75 foot lots, but perhaps the Board of Appeals would allow double bungalows. Since that time, Mr. Hall has sold off the back three four�hsof the lot. Chairman Jensen noted that this was for substandard widths. Mr. Marxen said that because of the taxes and specials, he felt he had to split the way he requested. Chairman Jensen said that when Mr, Marxen suggested splitting into six parcels. it seemed like stretching the lot split ordinance in this case, it almost seems as it should be platted. Mr. Nagel asked the make up of the adjoining property and was informed that homes were on most of the lots� noting the cul de sac on the map, Mr. Nagel was told that was part of a master plan for the area. Chairman Jensen suggested the Subcommittee consider: 1. Is the lot split method the proper way to divide or should it be a plat? 2. Would lots of these d�mensions be proper� Mr. Nagel said it was his thinking this is not a lot split type of division. Mr. Myhra asked that if the Su committee were to go or this size of lot (66' x 138') which is substandard according to our present standards, what kind of homes would be put in there and are we changing the character of the neighborhood � by allowing small lots which �ould tend to encourage a different kind of home. He thought the petitioner could get four good sized lots. He also wandered about access to interior lots. Presently there is not any, but he presupposes there will be a road in the future. He mentioned Lot 4 and asked Mr. Marxen if he had contacted the owner to get an idea of his plans. There might be a possibility of combining Lot 4 with his property and platting and then he could build something sizable which would be to his advantage. P1atS � Subs.-Str. $ Util. Mtg. - May 3, 1968 Page 3 Mr. Marxen was informed that if he could combine his parcel with the neighbor's parcel and come in with a preliminary plat with bigger lot sizes, the Subcommittee would reconsider. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Nagel, that the Plats � Subdivisions-Streets � Utilities Subcommittee recommend denial of the Lot Split request, L.S. #68-10, Thomas E. Marxen, Part of Lot 5, Revised Auditor's Subdivision #108. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #68-09, ROBERT DEGARDNER: Lots 22 through 25, Bloc 7c1— , Spring Brook�ar c�A3�dition. Mr. Schmedeke stated he had examined the area and asked if the driveways would be on Longfellow. He pointed out that Lot 26 would be left by itself and thought that i� should be combined with 22-25 so as no'�-to be left by itsel� and become an eyesore full.of weeds and o tax forfeit. He noted everything be�tween Longfellow and Liberty was vacan . Chairman Jensen said this is the Riverview Heights area where the petitioner is allowed to combine two 30 foot lots to make 60 foot frontage. It is in keeping with the neighborhood. The Engineering Assistant stated Mr. DeGardner would like, if possible, to build a house on the easterly portion and plan so as to allow for a building site on the westerly portion. The building permit says Lots 23 through 25, with driveways, onto Longfellow, The Chairman said the Subcommittee could indicate that they favor this lot split providing some clarification of the future of Lot 26 and that 60 foot lots should be considered. MOTION by Nagel, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Plats $ Subdivisions-Streets � Utilities Subcommittee recommend approval of Lot Split No. 68-09 subject to the petitioner advising the Planning Commission as to the disposition of Lot 26 adjoining the parcel to be split, the site would have a 60 foot frontage on Longfellow with a minmum of 9,000 square feet. Upon a voice yote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. CONTINUED LOT SPLIT, �RE UE�ST: L.S. #68-03, JOSEPH ZIZAK: Lots 6 t ru 9, Bloc 2k 7, Hyde Park Addition. No one was present. Continued to next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Nagel, that the Plats F Subdivisions-Streets � Utilities Subcommittee adjourn at 6:00 P.M. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. Next meeting will be on June 6, 1968.