Laserfiche WebLink
• H <br />#2298 Conley Brooks, Jr./John Brooks, 980 West Femdale/905 West Femdale <br />September 11, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />905 W'est Femdale, and its detachment seems extremely inconsistent with our basic concepts <br />of property contiguity and logical planning. However, I have been unable to find anything in <br />the code which would strictly prohibit this detachment'combination. <br />Applicant ’s reasons for the rearrangement request are primarily to control the peninsula to <br />preserve the view from his residence at 980 West Femdale, and secondarily to provide a <br />suitable beach recreation area for his family use. Applicant's letter correctly notes that the <br />entire peninsula, as well as most of the 905 West Femdale property, is in the 0-75’ lakeshore <br />setback zone. When 905 West Femdale was rebuilt some years ago, hardcover calculations and <br />approvals were based on an area of the property that included this peninsula. Transfer of <br />ownership of the peninsula technically results in a decrease in 0-75’ area and hence an increase <br />in the 0-75’ hardcover percentage for 905 West Femdale, although it does not increase actual <br />hard surface. Applicant correctly notes that no structures could be placed on the peninsula and <br />staff notes that there are significant numbers of small shmbs and some small trees growing on <br />the peninsula, but nothing of any large size. Presumably, Conley Brooks would want to keep <br />the p>eninsula from growing a thick barrier of trees which would block the views of the lake <br />from his house. <br />Additional Discussion <br />It seems unlikely that Hennepin County will allow the legal combination of the peninsula parcel <br />with the mainland parcel, considering that they are separated by a water body. If this proves <br />to be the case, then any approval granted by the City must require the execution of a Special <br />Lot Combination resolution filed in the Chain of Title of the appropriate properties, stipulating <br />that Lot 13 could not be sold separately from 980 West Femdale. It is against City policy and <br />practice, and inconsistent with the code requirements, to create an unbuildable lot via <br />subdivision without having that lot legally attached to an adjacent property. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does Planning Commission accept the concept of this detachment/recombination? <br />2. Does Planning Commission accept the hardcover ramifications of this proposal (i.e. the <br />technical percentage of 0-75’ hardcover on 905 West Femdale will increase from 9.63% <br />to 10.25% although the total square footage of hardcover on that property will not <br />increase)? <br />J.WTiat restrictions, if any, would Planning Commission recommend with regards to this <br />proposal?