CCP 11-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 29, 2001 13 applicable requirements. He stated he recommended splitting the lot into equal 90-foot wide parcels. He noted it would require reduction of an existing patio. Councilmember Larson explained that he had spoken to the owner of this property at the site. He stated one concern he had regarding the split was the likelihood ofredevelopment of the surrounding parcels in the future. He noted after looking at the homes, it is unlikely they would be replaced any time soon. He added there is not any likelihood that the parcels would be combined. He stated the adjacent lot owner would be unlikely to selll3 feet. He noted the proposed lot would be able to handle a very nice home and go onto the tax rolls in the future. He added he is not sure what would be gained by denying this request. He stated the City Planner's suggestion is reasonable and would work well there. He noted there would only be a five-foot variance for each of the lots. Mayor Probst stated the Planning Commission was unanimous in recommending denial. He asked for clarification. Councilmember Aplikowski responded the main issue was the Commission could not make a hardship finding. Mr. David Venessey stated part of the reason for the unanimous decision at the Planning Commission meeting was that the applicant was not prepared. He noted the applicant did not expect any problems. He added the assumption of the applicant when he purchased the property from his parents was that it was able to be split. He stated the applicant was comfortable with two 90-foot wide lots. He noted even if the applicant acquired the additionall3 feet, no one would want him to take that tree line down. He added the tree line was a protective buffer to the south. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she did not have a problem with the other proposal, so she had no problem with two 90-foot parcels. Councilmember Rem asked if there was no hardship for one variance, what would there be for two variances. Mayor Probst responded there had always been some anticipation of this split. He stated the timing ofthe split is such that it does not meet the current ordinance requirements. He noted there are other lots that have similar dimensions. Mr. Parrish stated the staff report incorrectly states the variance criteria. He noted under the subdivision ordinance, there is no requirement for hardship. He added the request should be evaluated in its totality of circumstances. Mr. Filla stated although the subdivision does not require a hardship to approve substandard lots, the Council would also be approving a setback variance for the existing home. He noted there would be a sideyard setback variance if the applicant uses the two 90-foot wide lot configurations. He added a variance would be needed for a sideyard setback. He noted the state regulations look at three factors. He stated one of these factors would be to find a hardship. He added it appears that in the past the city treated this as a divisible lot by allowing sewer and water stubs. He stated someone at the city offices thought the reasonable use of the parcel was for a new home. He noted there was reasonable reliance on the buyer's part because of the stubbing for sewer and water.