PCP 05-03-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---- 4. Additional Plan Review The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Operations and Maintenance Department, and the Building . Official have reviewed the preliminary plat and variance application, The comments from the City Engineer and Fire Marshal are included in Attachment 3A-2 and arc included in the recommended conditions for approvaL The City Engineer's comments arc mostly technical issues that do not affect the design ofthc subdivision, The applicant's surveyor was provided with a copy of the City Enginccr's comments and has submitted an updated Shcet 3, Thc applicant is proposing to pave the surface of the privatc driveway, The Operations and Maintenance Department Hcad and Building Official did not have any objections to the proposal. l<'indinl!s of Fact Zoning Ordinance Findings: 1. The proposal meets or exceeds all of the requirements of the undcrlying R-2 Zone, including minimum lot size, lot width, and lot dcpth. 2, All four lots arc capable of accommodating a dwelling that meets all required setbacks and coverage limits without a variance, Subdivision Ordinance Findings: . , Proposed Lots 2 and 3 are not directly adjacent to thc public right-of-way, which is Y. requircd by Section 1130,07 Subd 1. The applicant has submitted a variance request to waive this requirement by using a private drivcway. 4, With conditions, the proposal meets all other requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Variance Findings 5. The hardship is not bascd on a mere inconvenience, If a City street and cul-de-sac wcre constructed, it would likely still be possible to have four conforming lots, However, constructing a City strcet with a cul-de-sac would require considerahly more grading and tree removal without adding significant value to the propcrties or the neighborhood, Additionally, the private driveway will still be paved, 6. The conditions are relatively unique in this situation, The change in grade does make it comparably more difficult to construct a cul-dc-sac at this property, though not impossible. Howevcr, most other City streets and cul-de-sacs were part of largcr developments that required wider streets with higher capacities to handle the traffic gcnerated from serving numerous lots. In this proposal, only four properties would access the private street. City ojArden Hills Planning Commission lvleetingfor May 5, 2006 . lIMetro-inet.usiardenhills1Plal111ingIPianning Ca~.es'i20061()6-()13 Amities Coast PrelimiITa!)' Plat & Variance (P1::,VDING)W41806 PC Reporl- Amities preliminGlY pInt & Varinl1ce_doc Page 8 of 11