Resolution 2001-036 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cadone Variance 2001 City of Lake Elmo Washington County, Minnesota Resolution No. PZ 2001 -36 A RESOLUTION REGARDING A VARIANCE to the MINIMUM LOT AREA STANDARDS in TABLYN PARIS RESIDENTAIL DEVELOPMENT to Anthony Carlone 8655 2711 Street WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission, at its May 30, 2001 meeting, reviewed and heard testimony regarding the application of Anthony Carlone, to vary from the standards of Section 300.09 Additions and Exceptions to Minimum Area, Height, and Other Requirements of the Lake Elmo City Code at property legally described as: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and, 6 of Lot One; and, Lots 7,8,9, 10, and 11 of Block Two, Tablyn Park. WHEREAS, said variance is to create 5 new lots; 2 at 30,000 square feet, 2 at 30,200 square feet, and 1 at 32,000 square feet, and, an additional remnant parcel of 15,000 square feet, in the R -1 Zoning District, where 1.5 acres is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lake Elmo Planning Con 'ssion does hereby make the following findings concerning said variances: 1. There would appear to be somewhat unique circumstances regarding the parcels as they exist. They were created in an unusual configuration (length to width) in response to issues unrelated to the practicality of the end use intended by the original platting, after being first platted in character with adjacent parcels. 2. The literal interpretation of the lot area standards of the R -1 district in this case would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other property owners in the Tablyn Park neighborhood, if not all R -1 zoned areas of the City. The average lot size in this neighborhood is 24,000 square feet, or 37% of the R -1 minimum standard. The variances would result in parcels in excess of 30,000 square feet, or 46% of the R -1 lot size standard. Lots of Record is considered by the Zoning Ordinance to be conforming at 39,000 square feet. 3. It is reported by the applicant, and confirmed by City staff that was involved at the time, that the combination of the originally platted lots into the two large existing tax parcels was advocated by the City. As such, the actions resulting in the existing parcel areas are not totally attributable to the applicant.