Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Attachment A: Excerpt of tbe September 5, 2001 Planning Commission Meetiug Miuutes <br /> <br />CASE #01-26 - MCKINLEY COMPANIES. 4420 Hamline Avenue North. Minor <br />Subdivision/V ariance of lot width - Public Hearin2 <br /> <br />Chair Baker opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. <br /> <br />Staff reviewed their report dated August 28, 2001, and recommended denial of the <br />subdivision/variance for the reasons contained therein. Staff stated they had received <br />three letters regarding this application asking the City not to grant this variance. <br /> <br />Brent Thompson, owner of McKinley Companies, 300 South Owasso Boulevard, St. <br />Paul, stated he was the applicant. He indicated they wanted to maintain in the City's <br />Code 25 feet over-all setback on the existing home and their first option was to create an <br />82-foot lot. He stated they would easily fit a 57-foot home lot on the property. He <br />suggested moving the patio on the home and moving the lot line over so they would have <br />two 90-foot lots. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked how McKinley Companies carne to be involved in this <br />proposal. Mr. Thompson stated the owner had come to McKinley Companies and <br />requested they come up with a proposal for a lot split. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman stated a solution would be acquiring property from the <br />property at 4408. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson stated he did not believe they could grant a variance by moving <br />the lot line, which would make both lots non-conforming. <br /> <br />Chair Baker closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson asked for clarification regarding recommendations two and three. <br />Mr. Cronin replied the conditions that would create the hardship were not there and if <br />this variance was granted, it would lead to appeals and other residents in the area would <br />want to split their lots also. <br /> <br />Chair Baker agreed that he did not see any hardship and this would be opening up <br />problems in the future if the variance was not denied. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand asked if McKinley Companies was the owner of the property. Mr. <br />Cronin replied he believed McKinley Companies had a Purchase Agreement. <br /> <br />Chair Baker stated the best solution would be to approach the resident to the south for the <br />additional l3 feet, which would make two conforming lots. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand, to recommend denial <br />of Planning Case #01-26, McKinley Companies, 4420 Hamline Avenue North, Minor <br />Subdivision/Variance oflot width, as required by their site plan, for the following reasons <br />