PCP 08-02-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" Findin!:!s of Fact . Zoning Ordinance Findings: L The proposal meets or exceeds all of the requirements of the underl)~ng R-2 Zone, including minimum lot size, lot width, and lot depth. 2. The proposal docs not mcct the required 85 foot shorcline width requirement for lots on Lake Johanna. Parcel A would have 75 iCct of shorcline and Parcel B would have 64.5 fect of shoreline. A variance is required to approve this proposaL Subdivision Ordinance Findings: 3. With a variance for nonconforming shoreline width, the proposal mcets all requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Variance Findings 4. It is not practical to apply the full 85 foot lot width requirement for Parcel A and Parcel B in this particular situation. Since both lots are pre-existing, it is not physically possible to provide both lots with at least 85 feet of shoreline. 5. The circumstances are fairly lmique. There was a misunderstanding on the location of the lot line for a number of years, which may have led to the unusual orientation of the home on Parcel B that overlooks the land on Parcel A that has been maintained by the owners of Parcel B. 6. The variance is within the spirit of the Ordinance. The two lots are limited in the amount of shoreline and it is not possible for both lots to have at least 85 feet of shoreline. The variance would reduce the non-conformity of Parcel B. The reduction . of shorC]ine on Parcel A would have no noticeable impact. 7. While thcre is reasonable use on the property, the request is reasonable and will have no impact on the neighboring properties, the lake, or the City. 8. The variance proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or have a detrimental impact on thc public health, safcty, or welfarc and is in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and Shoreland Ordinance. Since no new lots are being created, this proposal will not impact neighboring properties or the City. Staff Recommendation The lots in the proposed subdivision meet or exceed all of the requirements of the underlying R-2 Zone. Although creating a non-conforming lot is generally discouraged, which will happcn to Parcel A in this case, the City will not be creating any new buildable lots with this proposal. While Parcel A does become a legal, non-conforming lot, Parcel B will have its non-confomlity reduced due to the increase in shoreline. While this may not be a traditional type of hardship, Staff has been unable to find any discemable negative impact from this proposal. Moreover, since the property owners have come to a mutually beneficial agreement in a potentially difficult City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor August 2. 2006 . IIMetro-inerus'lartlen!JilIsIPlanllingiPfnnning Cases12006i06-021 fJaglulld Variance & Lot Split (PENDJj\/G)'.071 106 - PC Report flaglund Variance & Lot Splil.JOC Page 7 of 9