PL MINUTES 02181986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- 1 of the W 198' of the SW 1/4 of 'the NW 1/4 of .Sect. 6, Township 29, range 23, 2 subject to easement for road purposes over the W 33' and the S 33' thereof, 3 Hennepin County. 4 5 In recommending approval , the Commission finds that: 6 7 1 . The project provides a distinct improvement for that location and conforms 8 with all City codes and ordinances including the provision separate 9 utilities for each unit; 10 11 2• The proposal would eliminate a perceived conflict in use in that neighbor- 12 hood in the City Comprehensive Plan by replacing commercial with residential 13 development on that property; and 14 15 3. There were no objections to the proposal voiced either before or during 16 the hearing. 17 18 Motion carried unanimously. 19 20 When the name of the owner of the 16 foot parcel could not be found on the 21 listing of property ,owners who had been notified of the hearing, Mr. Childs 22 assured the Commissioners that the omission would not nullify the proceedings. 23 He said he had held conversations with the property owner, his brother, and 24 father about the development of both properties and would see to it that 25 Mr. Mikkelson was notified that the Council would be making a decision on the 2 6 property next door to his at their next meeting. • 27 28 The Manager then indicated John -Theisse, 2949 Beechwood Avenue, was present that 29 evening to get Commission feedback on his proposal for a front/rear split of 30 the 124 foot wide by 300 foot deep, partially developed lot he owns at 3821 Foss 31 Road for the purpose of continuing the multiple housing use he is permitted under 32 an R-4 zoning on the back portion of the lot which borders on the City's walkway 33 around Mirror Lake. As he had indicated on the surveyor' s sketch and his 34 February 10th letter which were included in the agenda packet, Mr. Theisse said 35 he would be providing access to the new parcel with a 26 foot wide access drive- 36 way off Foss Road. 37 38 Mr. Childs had addressed the proposal in his February 14th memorandum and he 39 stated his concerns about allowing the lot split several times during the course ' 40 of the discussion that evening. He said he perceived that type of lot split 41 was a little out of the ordinary and was concerned the precedent might generate 42 future requests from other homeowners who also have extremely long lots to split 43 off the rear of their properties for another house, which the Manager said he 44 would not consider to be good planning for the City. He indicated he would have 45 the same concerns about the lots on the east side of Fordham Drive which have 46 the potential for the same type of lot split and the Manager indicated he just 47 wanted the Commissioners to think about the potential problems with lot splits 48 where ownership of waterlines, etc. could become a real problem. 49 50 Mr. Theisse agreed with Commissioner Madden,.who lives in the same neighborhood, ,51 that the current appearance of the property is very unsightly and said that is • 52 one of the reasons he wants to get rid of the whole parcel and responsibility 53 for supervision and maintenance of the existing house which has a three bedroom 54 apartment on the main floor, a two bedroom unit on the second floor, as well as 55 a one bedroom apartment in the basement now that he no longer lives in that house.