CC MINUTES 04221986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- Mr. Soth indicated he had also noticed the omission and perceived it might also be advisable to address the conditions under which the City Ordinance allowed a sub- division without platting. The Manager said he perceived the Commission had considered those conditions had been addressed when similar lot splits had been approved across the street which they considered to have set the precedents for similar treatment of this property. Mayor Sundland indicated he perceived the hardship in this case was �that there was not enough square footage left for the owner to be able to maximize the use of his property under the ordinance. Councilmember Marks wondered whether the changing of the lot size might not have to be handled through an ordinance change and Mr. Soth told him that would be a better way to do it if a whole area were involved, but his perception was that it would not be appropriate to amend the ordinance for only one lot. The question was raised whether there were other parcels in the area which had the potential for the same treatment and the Manager indicated the only remaining parcel on which this would be possible would be the property across Fordham Drive south of the ones McGinn had developed which he perceived, because of the better condition of the existing structures, would probably not happen for-;some time. Mr. Childs stated the conditions he perceived to be present with the request which could meet the ordinance definition of "hardship", namely, that the difficulty in developing the land .had not been self-imposed and had not resulted from something the owners had done; the difficulty had resulted in part from the unusual circumstances related to the lot size; imposing the ordinance would cause a hardship for the property • owners; and, finally, the sole purpose of the variance was not primarily to bring economic gain to the owners. Councilmember Marks said that, because this is the only 60 foot lot left to develop in that area, he could accept that fact as the basis for the "hardship" which had to be demonstrated since he perceived the only other option left the owners if their request is denied would be to use the land for a park. Commissioner Hansen said he also perceived the Commission had considered the hardship had been established when the City accepted similar lot splits across the street and the Commission representative indicated he was confident the rest of the Commissioners would have no problem with the findings stated by the Manager. Mr. Soth proposed wording for the findings related to the subdivision. Motion by Councilmember Ranallo and seconded by Councilmember Marks to approve the subdivision without platting of the 134 foot wide by 133.05 foot long parcel of land owned by Arvid and Eleanor Johnson at 4008 Fordham Drive N.E., described as Lot 4, Block 5, Mounds View Acres 2nd Addition, except the north 34.5 feet thereof lying east of the west 163.07 feet thereof, into two parcels, 60 feet by 133.05 feet and 74 feet by 133.05 feet, which would result in the newly created lot "A" being 7,983 square feet where 9,000 square feet is required by ordinance, on the condition that the new structure is constructed no closer than 10 feet from the north property line which would provide at least 14 feet between the two structures on Lots "A" and "B", and further granting width variances for both lots which would then be 74 feet and 60 feet wide, where 75 feet is required. In regard to the sub- division without platting, the Council finds that: • 1 . Compliance with the platting requirements of Section 330:61 would create an unnecessary hardship because of the nature of the subdivision; and