Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br /> 1 B'irger L. Kylander, 4013 Fordham Drive (.one of those lots . approved in 1984) <br /> 2 indicated he was appearing for Mr. :McGinn with whom Mr. Kylander would be <br /> 3 developing these lots as he had the previous two. He said---the,,ol.d ramshackle <br /> 4 structure at 4009 Fordham would be replaced by two new, larger homes on the <br /> 5 lots which would result from the subdivision and he assured Commissioner Jones <br /> 6 there would be no need for further variances for either of those new homes . <br /> 7 Mr. Kylander indicated he perceived a hardship was evident since the existing <br /> 8 124 foot X 296 foot lot is landlocked .at the rear and frontage for two additional <br /> 9 lots would probably never be provided. He said the area would never:;support <br /> 10 the type of house which would have' to be built on a $64,000' one acre lot. He <br /> 11 added that the subdivision of surrounding parcels into similar sized lots had <br /> 12 commenced way back in the 60' s. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 The developer indicated he and Mr. McGinn had believed contacting all the neighbors <br /> 15 again was unnecessary in view of,-the signed petition presented when Lot 8 had <br /> 16 been approved in June, 1984 at which time all the neighbors who signed under- <br /> 17 stood that Lot 9 would probably be developed in a similar manner. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 No one else appeared to speak for or .against the proposal and the hearing was <br /> 20 closed at 8: 50 P.M. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund .and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to recommend <br /> 23 the City Council approve the request from Mike McGinn, 4021 Fordham Drive, to <br /> 24 subdivide without platting Lot 8, Block 4,. Moundsview Acres (described as 4009 <br /> 25 Fordham Drive) into two single- family. residential lots, approximately 62.25 feet <br /> 26 wide by 296 feet in. length, totalling 18,000+ square feet each, and to grant the <br /> ® <br /> 27 necessary variance to the City Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum lot <br /> 28 width of 75 feet, finding that: <br /> 29 <br /> 30 1 . No opposition to the request was demonstrated during the Commission ' s hearing <br /> 31 or to staff following the notice; <br /> 32 <br /> 33 2. The applicant had in the past secured signatures of his neighbors on a document <br /> 34 which indicated their approval of an identical lot split and variance on the <br /> 35 adjacent lot; <br /> 36 <br /> 37 3. Approval of the request seems -justified by the unique physical attributes of <br /> 38 this property and the adjoining lots of similar size and shape (extreme <br /> 39 depths and narrow widths) , as well as the fact that the property to the rear <br /> 40 remains undeveloped and a _precedent for similar lot splits exists in Moundsview <br /> 41 Acres and on the adjoining property. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 4. The three conditions which are required to be satisfied affirmatively appear <br /> 44 to have been done so for this request; and <br /> 45 <br /> 46 5. Platting the property would be expensive and cumbersome. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 The Chair read the notice of the hearing to consider the petition from Rosemary and <br /> 51 Victor Munayco for the variance which would allow the erection of a 6 foot fence in <br /> • 52 the front yard of .3507 Edward Street N.E. where the City Fence Ordinance allows <br /> 53 only four foot fences. The notice had been sent to all property owners of record <br /> 54 within 200 feet of the subject property and published in the 'January 2nd Bulletin. <br /> 55 <br />