CCP 03-13-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - February 27,2006 ~ ~ that sentencc was trying to do. Mr. Johnson responded he would need to receive a legal clarification from the City Attorney, but he understood even with this change, a business such as Schwan's and/or Simon Delivers would be exempt. Couneilmember Grant stated he was in favor of the Ordinance with the changes. MOTION: Councilmembcr Grant moved and Councilmember Larson secondcd a motion to approve Ordinance #371 - Revising the Peddlers, Solicitors, and Transient Merchants Ordinance. The motion carricd unanimously (4-0). B. Planninl! Case #06-002: Garv Findell, 1401 Skiles Lane - Minor Subdivision and Varianee Mr. Lehnhoff stated on February I, 2006, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of Mr. Findell's minor subdivision and variance request. Mr. Findell has suhmitted additional information to encourage thc Council to vote to approve this request. However, if the City Council prefers, the new material can be remanded back to the Planning Commission for further reVlew. He indicated Mr. FindeU is correct that if the existing dwelling wcre moved to a conforming location, a variance would not be needed and the proposed subdivision would meet all technical requirements ofthe R-1 Zone and the subdivision ordinance. If the variancc is denied, Mr. Findcll has indicated that he would move forward to have the existing dwelling relocated into a confoillling position. Furthermore, he would request the City Council to table the current minor subdivision application and remand it back to the Planning Commission for review without the variance request. Unfortunately, variances are rarely clear-cut issues. When reviewing a variance rclated to a subdivision, a City typically looks for a hardship related to the land and not the structures on the land. In Mr. Findell's case, the variance and perceived hardship is related to the structure. Ideally, a subdivision would only create a conforming lot with conforming structures. While the minor subdivision would result in a conforming lot, the variance request would increase the non- conformity of the dwelling. It is open to interprctation if a hardship to allow thc existing structure to remain within the sidc sctback exists since the dwelling can be moved into a confonning location. However, moving the dwelling would certainly result in the loss of several mature trees. The Planning Commission found that a hardship did not exist. The City can deny a subdivision application if it is determined that the subdivision would harm the public welfare; however, it would be difficult to make findings that this subdivision proposal would harm the public welfare since it meets or exceeds all provisions of the R-1 Zone and the subdivision ordinance. Although more review may be needed of Mr. Findell's assertions, a cursory review of the information he submitted related to lot dimensions in the neighborhood does indicate that the size of his proposed lots would not be unique or obtrusive in the neighborhood.