PL MINUTES 09171985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- 1 said his only request at this time was to be allowed to make that purchase since • 2 any further split of the property would probably not happen for at least four or 3 five years . 4 5 Mr. Childs indicated the legal description of the lot split would have to meet with 6 the approval of the Ramsey County Torrance Office, but said he would anticipate no 7 problem there, since they had recently approved a number of similar splits in the 8 same area. 9 10 No other persons were present to speak to the issue and the hearing was closed at 11 7:40 P.M. for Commission consideration of a recommendation to the Council . 12 1.3 The consensus of the Commission was that, although it was true, as Mr. Childs had 14 said, the City had to assume some responsibility for creating situations where lots 15 might not be up to City standards, it was also true that there was no request before 16 the Commission to create such a lot that evening, and if there had been, the pre- 17 cedent for 62 foot lots had already been set in that same neighborhood. It was 18 also acknowledged that there was a potential for the same width lots being created 19 if the undeveloped property east of the McGinn property were opened up by the owner. 20 21 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend 22 Council approval of the transfer of the north 45 feet from the property at 4000 23 Fordham Drive N.E. (_Lot 5) to tie in with the property at 4008 Fordham Drive N.E. 24 (.Lot 4) , by subdivision without platting, as requested by the owners of Lot 5, 25 Dan and Kay Kramer, finding there had been no opposition to the subdivision expressed 26 either during the September 17th Commission hearing or to staff prior to that • 27 hearing. 28 29 Motion carried unanimously. 30 31 The Final P.U.D. Plan for the Walker on -Kenzie project had been submitted for 32 Commission reaction and Mr. Childs indicated he, as Executive Director of the 33 Housing and Redevelopment Authority, co-developers of the project, would answer any 34 questions .the Commissioners might have about that Plan. He pointed out that there 35 had been two changes made in the plan; one to change the roofline from flat to 36 pitch, would be more in keeping with the rooflines in St. Anthony, and the other, 37 to move the trash area into the building. 38 39 At Commissioner Hansen's request, the Manager measured the height of the new roof- 40 line and it appeared it would be about three feet higher than the flat roof ori- 41 ginally proposed. The Manager said, however, that type of change would be judged 42 under the Planned Unit Development requirements rather than the Variance Ordinance 43 and under the P. U.D.., this modification could not be perceived to "change materially 44 either the intent or impact of the total project. " 45 46 Commissioner Madden said he had not been on the Commission when this project was 47 developed, but he .perceived constructing only a portion of the Saliterman shopping 48 center at a time had not been the intent of the Kenzie Terrace Task Force when 49 they had first studied the redevelopment of this area. He was told of the many 50 unsuccessful efforts to get 202 funding for larger 030 unit) senior housing pro- .51 ro- 51 jects for the property across Kenzie which had resulted in the proposed project 52 for only 45 units being the only one which H.U.D. would fund. Mr. Childs indicated • 53 the Walker project was considered a separate development from the rest of the 54 Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment project and told Commissioner Madden it had only been 55 because Mr. Saliterman had been willing to sell this parcel separately that the 56 project had been possible.