Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to City Council <br />Planning Case #01-27: Preliminary Plat and Variance for Hamline Preserve <br />Page 6 of7 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />conditions that it deems desirable or necessary to the public interest. <br /> <br />The variance findings above pertain specifically to the private access that is being requested. The <br />findings necessary to grant a lot width variance are contained within the Zoning Ordinance. The <br />conditions required for a for a lot width variance are found in Section 8. Administration and <br />Procedures, 4. Variances, c. and d. in the Code. They hasically require: <br /> <br />1. The conditions present on the property create a hardship in meeting the standards of the Code <br />and prohibit, rather than make inconvenient or expensive, reasonable development without <br />the requested variance. <br />2. The conditions on the property that create the hardship are not present on other similarly <br />sized lots in the same district. <br />3. The relationships with abutting properties will not be adversely affected by granting the <br />vanance. <br /> <br />The lot width variance is not specifically addressed in the Plarming Commissions <br />recommendation. The Council may wish to address this issue as part of its motion given the fact <br />that the Planning Commission did not have "full" information relative to this item. The applicant <br />has provided some information relative to the variance criteria. This has been attached for your . <br />review. Please see the Planning Commission's recommendation helow outlining findings to <br />deny the requested private access variance. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />In Planning Case 01-27, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial ofthe <br />private access variance and the plat it would permit finding: <br /> <br />1. Thcre is no hardship in the continued use of this parcel as a single residence and <br />the present single-family use of this large parcel continues to be a reasonable use <br />of the property. As such, absent the proposed plat the applicants still enjoy a <br />substantial property right. <br /> <br />2. The proposed private access does not conform to City Standards. <br /> <br />3. Absent the requested variance, the proposed plat does not comply with the <br />minimum requirements of the Code and therefore, carmot be approved. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />Given the current configuration of the plat, the deficiencies of the private access <br />and several unknown issues, granting the variance has the potential to adversely <br />impact adjacent property owners. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />6 <br />