CC 09-24-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 24,2001 9 MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the site plan subject to the three conditions contained in the staff report as recommended by Staff. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. Case #01-26, McKinley Companies, 4420 Hamline Avenue N., Minor Subdivision/Lot Split Parcel Mr. Parrish explained the application and the recommendation by the Planning Commission to deny the application. Councilmember Larson stated he recalled that in order for the lots behind this one to develop they needed access off Hamline Avenue. He asked if this lot split created a landlocked area behind it. Mr. Parrish responded the lots behind this one had been developed. Councilmember Larson asked about what properties did the Planning Commission have concerns. Mr. Parrish responded the properties adjacent on Hamline Avenue. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if each parcel had an individual owner. Mr. Parrish responded in the affirmative. Mr. Brian Sladek stated his parents purchased this lot in 1970. He noted he took over ownership in 1995. He added his parents had received approval in 1978 to split the lot. He added it was taken off the market when no buyer was found. He stated he assumed he had the same right to split the parcel his parents were given in 1978. Mr. David Venessey, a friend of Mr. Sladek, stated the Planning Commission was looking for a hardship. He noted that years ago Mr. Sladek's parents paid an assessment to have water and sewer stubbed in for the second lot. He added since that time the code had been changed. He stated the only issue was the width of the lot. He noted the house was set off to one side to set up the lot split. He added the other properties had centered homes. He stated those lots were not as big as this lot. Mr. Parrish stated he picked up these cases from the Planning Consultant. He noted that if the applicant could acquire 13 feet from the property to the south then this would be a conforming lot. He added he did not know if the applicant had considered this solution. Mr. Sladek responded he was not open to that suggestion. Councilmember Aplikowski stated if the applicant acquired 13 feet, it would make the neighbor's lot to the south oddly shaped. Mr. Parrish responded in the affirmative. Mr. Venessey stated there was an assumption that the city, by allowing the stubbing of water and sewer, gave an impression it was a buildable lot. He noted this lot exceeds the minimum square footage. He added the width of the lot was the only issue. He added the lots behind it were developed so there was nothing left to be landlocked.