CCP 03-13-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

neighborhood and meets all requirements of the R-2 Zone without the need for a Variance. 2. The conditions on the property are generally not unique. Most residential properties in the ncighborhood and throughout the City are already subdivided to their smallest possible size under the current Ordinance. While a comer lot does require ten more feet in width than interior lots, that regulation is applied to other comer properties as well. 3. While this subdivision may not be directly detrimental to the public welfare or adjacent lots, allowing the creation of new, non-conforming lot is contradictory to the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance when there is currently reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission also voted unanimously to recommend denial of the minor snbdivision based on the following five findings of fact: I. The submitted survey was prepared by a registered land surveyor and meets pertinent City requirements. 2. Parcel B, the interior lot, does not meet the minimum 85 foot lot width requirement. The proposed lots meet all other area requirements ofthe R-2 Zone. 3. While there are two lots immediately north of the subject with substandard lot widths, approximately 50 feet each, all other properties on Thom Drive in this neighborhood meet or exceed the minimum lot width. Although the subdivision may not be injurious to adjacent properties, Parcel B does fail to meet the full minimum requirements of the R-2 Zone. 4. The applicant has met all other applicable requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed lots have access to a public road, have adequate buildable areas, and mect the requirements ofthe R-2 Zone. 5. All required application fees have been paid. This subdivision does result in the creation of one new residential lot. Under Section 1130.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the park dedication fee would apply to this case. The Recreation and Conservation portion (Subd. 2) requires that all subdivisions dedicate a portion oftheir land for recreation and conservation purposes or, as deemed comparable value by the City Council, pay a park dedication fee in place of a land dedication. Resident Comment Staff has not received any letters or telephone calls from property owners or occupants in regard to this planning case. Deadline for Ageney Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 6, 2006. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by April 6,2006 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. \\Metro-inet,u~'\(1rdenhiflsIPlann;/TgIPlnnnillg Cnses\2006106-005 Koloski minor subdivision l1mi variance (PENDING)\030206 ~ CC Report- KOloski Minor Subdivision & Variance. doc Page 2 00 - e 4t