1978-06-14 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 14, 1978 Page 2 dAA the folluwing provision - that a postponement of the recording nnd developnent of ~ Jthe plat be required unt~1 the Ardan Avenue drainage system is relieved. 4~yas REVIEW OF CHAPTER 40.06 - AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS Chairperson Hsake reviewed th? memo the PSanning Commission received from Attarney Meyers regarding the granting of variances for 1ot size. Official Rose expleined that thE report from the Atterney states several cases ~here varlances may be granted only when the appllcant sustains the heavy burden qf proaf of the resulting Nardship that a variance should be granted. He added thaC personal or ecanomic hardship is not a substantial reas~n for granting a Varlance. Official Rose stated that it is the opinion of the Atturney and SCaff that the ordinance sh4uld be changed tu altow smailer lat sizes and that Staft' has surveyad surraunding cities to see what they allow. Official Rose reported that Fridley allows 3,OU0 square feet for both interior and corner lots, versus Nuunds Vjews 11,000 square feet, and allows 75` interior lots, versus Mounds View 85' interiur tots, and 80' corner lots, versias Mounds Views 100'. He added that Arden H171s allows 14,0~0 square feet and 9b' fronLage f'or both interlor and cornet~ lots, New Brlghtmi allows 76' Prontage and 10,00U square feet for both interlor and corner lots, Spriny Lake Park allows 10,A00 square feet attd will grant a variance if the lot was owned befare 1976 a.nd ca~ meet 70~ of the required frontage, or ,~ in essence, 53' of frontage. He added thet Blaine requires 80' of frontage and i 'has no area requirement, while Brooklyn Park requires 75' o"r frontage for interior ~ lots and 90' for corner lots, and 9,500 square feet for interior lats and 10,b00 square feet for corner lots. Official Rose stated that after reviewing these requirements wlth the Attorney and .itaPf,they would propose the C1ty add two sections to Chapter 40.O6,one which would state that for a11 interior lots classified R-1, which are proposed for minor subdivision, one 1ot into two, a variance can be granted whare the lot frontage will not be less than 70% of the minimum 1ot width as stated in Subdivision B, Sectlon i, and the totai lot area will be not less than 100% of the minimum square footage, as stated in Subdivision B; Section 2, with the existing bui'Idings and any proposed building development required to raeet a17 setback requirements. Officiri Rose reported that the other propased change wou7d be that for a17 interior lots classified R-1, which are preposed for minor subdivision, one tot into two, a variance can be gr~anted where the lot frontage wi11 be not tess Chan 75 feet and the total 1ot area wiil be not less than 100% of the minimum square footage as stated in Subdivislon B, Section 2, with the existing buitdings and any proposed building development required to meet a77 setback requirements. Official Rose stated that with Lhe 70% width requirement, a 59.5' frontage would be allowed. He added that Chapter 40.04, Subd7vision C states that any parcel which wa~ recorded prior to May 9, 1960 which meets area requirements is bullAabie. Official Rase also stated that in reviewing the area map of the City, he did not be7teve there would be Rany instances wliere this wou7d be requested. I,,~J Officia'I Rose steted that in the case of ma~or subdivisions, Staff was proposin9 that 59% of the lots wou7d have to meet all code requireraents, with the other 50% being requlred to meet at least 9Q% of the requirements. Cha!roerson Haake sCaCed she would like to discuss ust minor subdivisions at this time. Official Rose rep1iQd that it is tne apinion of t~e attorney that ma~or subdivisions sho~ald be covered also.