Laserfiche WebLink
Date: <br />Planning Commission Members <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator <br />February 12, 1986 <br />Subject: #999 Leslie LaBresh/Evan Meline - <br />3598 North Shore Drive - Variance - Second Review <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Exhibit C <br />Exhioit D <br />Exhibit E <br />Exhibit F <br />-- Planning Commission Minutes 12/16/85 <br />- Letter From Neighbor Fegers, 1/10/86 <br />- Administrators Response To Fegers Letter 1/29/86 <br />- Letter To Applicant 2/5/86 <br />- Memo and Exhibits of 12/5/85 <br />- 2/13/86 Letter To Hennepin County Department of <br />Transportation <br />Planning Commission tabled this item on December 16, 1985 so <br />that the applicants could firm-up plans to purchase additional <br />property from Hennepin County. As of this writing, the appli­ <br />cants have stated that the County intends to sell some portion of <br />the adjacent property at a public sale in March. The County <br />apparently intends to keep as right-of-way a strip 40* from the <br />centerline. It is not known how many of the 6 adjacent lots will <br />be sold. <br />The City has advised the County that the subject properties <br />will not constitute a building site, and no dock may be placed on <br />the property, hence it has little value except to the adjacent <br />property owner. Because this land is owned outright by the <br />County, they have a right to sell to whomever they wish, i.e. <br />highest bidder. Presumably, Meline will be the only bidder. <br />If the applicant does acquire additional property, it <br />appears that the majority of it will be in the 0-75' setback <br />area, hence the requested hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone <br />will change little. <br />Please note the correspondence from Fegers and the Building <br />Official's notice that further hazardous building action is <br />pending. From a technical standpoint, the foundation remaining <br />is definitely a hazard, and the documentation exists to ascertain <br />that a structure did in fact occupy the property, hence there <br />would seem to be no viable reason for futher delay in demolishing <br />the structure. <br />Please review the memo and exhibits of December 5 (Exhibit <br />E). Are there any hardships or unique circumstances which <br />justify granting of variances?