CC PACKET 09251984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 -5- • 1 Motion carried unanimously. 2 3 Mr. Budnicki. persisted in his belief that .the proposed structure "would be .too .long 4 for -that small -lot", and indicated he was convinced the Commission would see he 5 was right after it is constructed. 6 7 Under the "Unfinished Business" classification in the agenda, Mr. Childs had advised 8 that Robbie Nelson, whose request for a variance had been tabled August 21st, . 9 would be constructing his addition in such a manner as to not require a variance . 10 11 Mike Anderson, 1809 South Plymouth Road, Minnetonka, was present to request concept 12 approval for his plans for rebuilding for sale of the storm damaged property at i 13 2608 - 33rd Avenue N.E. , which he had purchased from his father's aunt, Ila Clark, I 14 who could not bear to return to her home now that all her dearest belongings were 15 gone. He said he had completely removed the damaged structure and dug out the 16 basement where there had been water problems in the past and now planned to 17 construct on the 47 X 156 foot lot a 34 foot wide structure for which he would 18 need a two foot variance to the City Ordinance requirement for 15 foot sideyard 19 setbacks. 20 21 The plans, which were included in the Commission agenda, were the same ones as 22 used for the Robert Rivard home at 3224 Roosevelt Street N.E. , which had been 23 recommended by Mr. Hamer. However, since the Rivard home was built on a 51 foot 24 lot, Mr: Anderson indicated he doubted very much weather the City would be will - 25 ing to give him a four foot variance and said he would be adjusting the plans so _ 26 only a two foot variance would be necessary. The modifications. would be made in 27 the length of the home since there is plenty of room to the rear, Mr. Anderson said. 28 29 The applicant indicated he had lived in the northeast metropolitan area most of 30 his life and had three relatives, including a sister who lives on Edward, within I 31 10 blocks of the Clark home. The man who lived next to this property was a friend i 32 of his grandfather and Mr. Anderson said that he had indicated a great interest in 33 seeing him develop the property but had died two weeks previously. 34 35 There was an indepth discussion of the relation of the subject property and the 36 Hertog property, which Mr. Childs is certain would be replatted for residential 37 development some time in the near future, for which the Manager anticipates the 38 property owners would be seeking a similar treatment on the corner lots as had 39 been requested for the Peele property that evening. Ii 40 41 Mr. Anderson indicated he agreed that it would be ideal to have his property j 42 incorporated into the Hertog and Johnson developments as suggested by Commissioner 43 Jones, but since the Manager had indicated it could be some time before the 44 insurance settlement is made and the .lot split for such a development realized, 45 the new property owner indicated he could not delay his own project that long. 46 He said he still hoped to get into the ground as soon as the City procedures would 47 permit and to have the home sold by Christmas. 48 49 Mr. Anderson said .he had found out the lot owned by the Hertogs east of his own 50 was 42 feet wide. and he. estimated the old structure, which was once used as -a 51 schoolhouse, to be -.at -least 10 feet from his property line. The applicant • 52 indicated he perceived he had a similar situation to the Peele's where it would be 53 hardship to build an attractive home in such a limited space without ending up 54 with a "shed appearance which had concerned Mr. Budnicki . Mr. Anderson also 55 contended the home he planned to build on the lot would not appreciably increase 56 the value of the parcel beyond what was there before the storm.