My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 02-27-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 02-27-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:19 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 4:42:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />~ <br />~~HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />February 22,2006 <br /> <br />Agenda Item 6.B <br /> <br />TO: Mayor and City Council <br /> <br />FROM: James Lehnhoff, City Planner <br /> <br />SUBJECT: PC #06-002 <br />Gary Findell <br />1401 Skiles Lane <br />Minor Subdivision & Variauce <br /> <br />Backl!round <br /> <br />Please refcr to the City Council report from February 13, 2006, for full background information <br />regarding Mr. Findell's request for a Minor Subdivision and Variance at 1401 Skiles Lane. <br /> <br />Update <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />On February 1,2006, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial ofMr. Findell's <br />minor subdivision and variance request. Mr. Findell has submitted additional information to <br />encourage the City Council to vote to approve his request. However, if the City Council prefers, <br />the new material can be remanded back to the Planning Commission for further review. <br />Unfortunately, there was only time for a quick review of Mr. Findell's submittal before the <br />Council meeting. However, Mr. Findell is correct in that ifthe existing dwelling were moved to <br />a conforming location, a variance would not be needed and the proposed subdivision would meet <br />all technical requirements ofthe R-1 Zone and the subdivision ordinance. <br /> <br />Ifthe variance is denied, Mr. Findell has indicated that he would move forward to have the <br />existing dwelling relocated into a conforming position. Furthermore, he would request the City <br />Council to table the current minor subdivision application and remand it back to the Planning <br />Commission for review without the variance request. <br /> <br />Unfortunately, variances are rarely clear cut issues. When reviewing a variance related to a <br />subdivision, a City typically looks for a hardship related to the land and not the structures on the <br />land. In Mr. Findell's case, the variance and perceived hardship is related to the structure. <br />Ideally, a subdivision would only create a conforming lot with conforming structures. While the <br />minor subdivision would result in a conforming lot, the variance request would increase the non- <br /> <br />1\Metro-iner.usl,ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2006W6-002 Finde/J minor subdivision and variance (PENDING)\022206 CC Report- <br />Findell Minor Subdivision & varinnce.doc <br /> <br />Page 1 of5 <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.