CCP 10-15-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 6 Commissioner Sand asked if McKinley Companies was the owner of the property. Mr. Cronin replied he believed McKinley Companies had a Purchase Agreement. . Chair Baker stated the best solution would be to approach the resident to the south for the additional 13 feet, which would make two conforming lots. Commissioner Erickson moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand, to recommend denial of Planning Case #01-26, McKinley Companies, 4420 Hamline Avenue North, Minor SubdivisionIV ariance of lot width, as required by their site plan, for the following reasons and the following conditions: 1. There is no hardship in the continued use of this parcel as a single residence and the present single family uses of this large parcel continues to be the reasonable development of this legacy parcel. 2. If the requested variance were granted, it would eliminate the opportunity for the adjacent similarly sited and conditioned legacy parcels to redevelop and intensify without significant variances from the requirements of the Code. 3. If the redevelopment and intensification of the parcel at 4420 Hamline is to occur, it should occur in conjunction with the adjoining properties at 4408 Hamline and 4440 Hamline to permit an innovative and more conforming resolution of the vestigial conditions that are the legacy of each parcel. 4. Absent the requested variance the proposed subdivision does not comply with the minimum requirements of the Code and therefore cannot be approved. . The motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, September 24,2001, regular meeting of the City Council. CASE #01-24 - T.J. Food Ventures (Perkins). 3855 N. Lexinl!ton Avenue - Discussion Staff reviewed their report dated August 28, 2001 and recommended approval of the site plan for Case #01-24 for the reasons contained therein noting that applicant was in compliance with the major issues. Chair Baker asked if staff had concerns regarding the parking and landscaping requirement, why did they not make this a part of the application. Mr. Cronin stated they probably would not be able to meet these requirements. They were dealing with a non- conforming site that was expanding. Commissioner Erickson stated he did not believe they were nonconforming with respect to the parking and asked that this be calculated. He also requested the landscaping be calculated. Mr. Cronin suggested postponing this until next month so staff could . calculate these requested figures. Commissioner Erickson stated nothing was materially changed with the parking or landscaping and asked if this was being brought up due to the expansion. Mr. Cronin