PCP 07-12-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , and four accessory structures, All four of the accessory structures are considered I non-confonning and would be required to be removed for approval ofthc . subdivision. The applicant is also proposing to remove an existing accessory structure that would straddle thc proposed lot line between Lots 2 and 4, The existing dwelling and accessory structure on the 3685 New Brighton Road would remain and become part of Lot 4. The applicant has indicated that they arc working with the property owner to the north (3707 New Brighton Road) to replace the existing retaining wall between Lot I and the propcrty to the north. A retaining wall greater than four feet in height requires an approved building permit. No plans for a retaining wall have bccn submitted at this time, 3. Granting a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance In the revised application, the applicant is proposing to have Lots I and 2 to share a portion of their driveway and sharc the access point to New Brighton Road. While there are a number of partially shared driveways in the City, Section 6.F.3.c.(4) states: (4), Proximity to lot lines, Access drives may be placed adjacent to property lines, but in no case shall a driveway be placed nearer than five (5) feet to an existing drive on an abutting parcel. . The above restriction does not permit driveways to be shared or directly adjacent to each other. A variance would be needed for Lots I and 2 to partially share a driveway. Please note that the revised variance application is not for a variance from the Subdivision Code. The new request would be a variance from the Zoning Ordinance, which has slightly diffcrcnt evaluation criteria that are outlined below. A variance from the Zoning Ordinance relates to the design and layout of structures and surfaces on the lots themselves. A variance from the Subdivision Code would relate to the fundamental design and layout of the plat design. In the revised application, a variance is not needed for the design of thc preliminary plat. The revised preliminary plat design is not contingent upon approval of this variance requcst to allow two lots to partially share a driveway. If the variance is approved, a separate motion from the preliminary plat would be needed. The preliminary plat should be evaluated before the variance, City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July12. 2()()6 . '1IMerro-inel_1H'I(jrdenhi//sIPfonningIPfanning Casesl]006',06-0J3 Amilies COOSl Pre/iminm}' Plat & Variance (Pt:ND!/v'Gjl(){j2f06 PC Report Amities prdiminw)" pial & Variancp.doc Page 7 {)f 12