My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 07-30-1990
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCP 07-30-1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:08:27 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 3:31:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> It further says that the counci I, in making this <br /> . finding, shall consider the nature of the proposed use <br /> of land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, <br /> the number of persons to reside in the proposed <br /> subdivision, and the probable effect of the proposed <br /> subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. <br /> All of these conditions could probably be considered reasonably met <br /> in the proposed variance; but the primary objective of the proposed <br /> variance is to increase the value to the estate. <br /> 4. The immediate neighborhood consists of a number of irregular <br /> conditions--lots left over when adjoining parcels were subdivided, <br /> a cul-de-sac at the end of Amble Road with a garage that abuts the <br /> cul-de-sac, wetlands that abut building sites, variety of lot <br /> sizes, and mixture of home styles and ages. (Lots 4 and 5, <br /> directly east of the subject lot, are each 82.5 feet wide by 138 <br /> feet deep, for a lot,area of 11,385 square feet, so they are about <br /> 2,000 square feet less than lots Band C in the proposal). "The <br /> existing use of land in the vicinity" is one of the considerations <br /> mentioned in the variance provisions above. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> The primary questions remain: <br /> 0 If we reject the variance and reduce the division to two lots <br /> . instead of three, are wc denying the applicant a substantial <br /> property right or depriving him of reasonable use of his land <br /> because of the total site being 1,000 square feet under size? <br /> 0 If we accept the variance, are we causing injury to the public <br /> welfare or nearby property owners? <br /> If the variance is approved or denied, reasons for the action should be <br /> itemized. If the variance is granted, conditions should be attached as <br /> follows: <br /> 1. That the present driveway access to Hamline Avenue be removed as <br /> the new lot (Lot A) will front on Amble Road. <br /> 2. That utility and drainage easements be provided to the City as <br /> required by the City Engineer. <br /> 3. That the City Attorney and Engineer approve of the subdivision <br /> documents to be filed with the county. <br /> 4. That park dedication fees be paid to the city prior to issuance of <br /> building permits. <br /> NOTE: Another alternative would be to approve the variance with the <br /> condition that the existing dwelling be razed. The City would be <br /> . allowing three lots where technically only two would meet all <br /> ordinance requirements; but the city would also be eliminating a <br /> 111~b CASE #90-10 <br /> PAGE 2 OF 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.