Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , <br /> . It further says that the council , 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 we 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 /> fo 11 ows : <br /> 1. That the present driveway access to Hamline Avenue be removed as <br /> the new 10t.(Lot A) will front on Amble Road. <br /> 2. That util ityand 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 /> LIllo CASE #90-10 <br /> PAGE 2 OF 3 <br />