CCP 03-27-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 13, 2006 3 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Plannin!!: Case No. 06-005: Minor Subdivision and Variance; Richard Kotoski, 2105 Tborn Drive Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant is requesting a minor subdivision of a .70 acre property at 2015 Thom Drive in the R-2 Zone. Parcel A, a corner lot, is proposed to be 95 feet by 174 feet for a total area of 16,530 square feet. The minimum lot width for a lot in the R-2 Zone is typically 85 feet; however, Section 1130_07 Subdivision 8 of the City Code of Ordinances require corner lots to be ten feet wider than the minimum lot width for a particular zone_ In this case, the minimum lot width is 95 feet for the corner lot Parcel B, the interior lot, is proposed to be 81 feet by 173 feet for a total area of 14,013 square feet. The minimum lot width for interior lots is 85 feet; therefore, a variance is required to create a non-conforming lot due to substandard lot width_ The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and accessory structure_ A letter has been submitted detailing the basis for the variance request At their March I, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case No_ 06-005 and voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance based on the following findings of fact: 1_ The hardship is based on an inconvenience. The property currently has reasonable use and can accommodate a single-family dwelling that is comparable to others in the neighborhood and meets all requirements of the R-2 Zone without the need for a vanance_ 2_ The conditions on tile property are generally not unique_ Most residential properties in the neighborhood and throughout the City are already subdivided to their smallest possible size under the current Ordinance_ While a corner lot does require ten more feet in width than interior lots, that regulation is applied to other corner properties as well. 3_ While this subdivision may not be directly detrimental to the public welfare or adjacent lots, allowing the creation of a 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 mmor subdivision based on the following five findings of fact: 1_ 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 lot meets all other area requirements of the 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