PCP 11-01-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. For example, in the southeastern part of the City there was a property that was composed ofthree nonconfonning lots of record. The existing regulations required the City to allow the property owner to revert the single confomling property back to three nonconfomling propel1ies despite the fact that each property had less than half of the required minimum lot area. The proposed regulations in Section 1310.03 Subd 2 would prohibit property owners from reverting a confOlTI1ing property back to the original lots of record if the lots do not meet current minimum requirements. As the pressure for infill development increases, we will likely see an increase in property owners that want to recreate nonconforming properties. Nonconforming properties can be difficult to develop due to limited access to a public roads, substandard soils, wetland coverage, and they may create higher than desired densities in certain neighborhood. 'rhis provision helps the City stop the increase of "new" noncontomling properties. Properties that arc composed of two or more lots ofrecord that mcet the minimum requirements of the underlying zone would still be pemlitted to revert back to the original property lines. Subd 3: If a person purchases t\\'o or more propertics and builds across the propel1y linc, this subdivision would require the property owner to combine the properties into a single propel1y. 1315: ZONING A1AP AND BOUNDARiES OF ZONING DISTRICTS . Since the Zoning Code is being updated, the City Attorney has recommended removing Subdivisions I and 2 of Section 1315.01. The rcason for this change is that the Zoning Map will be up to date with the re-codification. A revised copy of this scction is included in Attachmcnt 3D-2. /320: DiSTRICT PROVIS10N,)' Although this is one of the most imp0l1ant sections of the zoning regulations, there are only two changes to review in this Section: . The rdercnces to thc "Lcxington A venue Busincss Plan" have been removed. I have attempted to locate this plan, but there does not seem to be a copy availablc. Furthennore, I cannot find anyonc that has even heard of this plan. . Scction 1320.14 Subd 5 includes the voting requirements to approve a Planned Unit Development (PUD). State law does not require a 4/5 approval for PUDs; however, the City can be more restrictive if they so choose. While there is not a standard for cities on this issue, the 3/5 vote requirement is becoming more common. This is a largcr policy issue for the City Council, though it does have some impact the Planning Commission. Either way, this paragraph should be moved to Section 1355, Ci(v ofArd(,1I lfills P[allning COlllmissiollll/('ctillgfi)/' NUW'lIlha I. 2006 . \\Alclro-il/ct./Is\anl('l/hills\I'/<1l/nillg\P/alll/il/,<!. Cascs:200r\\06-034 /ollillg C"de R('('odlj/mlion (1'/,N[)/NGj\/1I/7116 - I'C Mell/o - /ollil/g Rc('odifi('<1liol1_duc Page 5 of 13