My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-190
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-190
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/4/2007 10:32:49 PM
Creation date
2/27/2007 5:09:54 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 2 <br />August 3, 1978 <br />Past practice, and the Zoning Code, have been to require standard <br />size lots for the respective zoning districts. Variations to-this <br />requirement have normally only been approved when the subdivision <br />was part of a Planned Residential Development (PRD). <br />The second issue is whether .there are the necessary warrants (i.e., <br />undue hardship, unique circumstances and applying to the property) <br />are present to justify the variance. Attachment to a neighborhood <br />and school., and the price of land are very real issues, but it is. <br />difficult. to associate them with this parcel of land and proposed <br />subdivision. While the home is positioned to the south, the <br />situation is not unique throughout the City as there are numerou s <br />homesbuilt on lots as large or: larger than the existing property, <br />with large side yards. In general,. it does. not appear that the <br />warrants have been presented to justify the variance. <br />In his letter the applicant has noted that within a 2 block radius <br />.there are other homes built on as small. or smaller in width lots. <br />While this is true, it is obvious from looking at the attached <br />location map that large parcels are very .common in the general <br />area.- Just looking at the lots on either side of 3rd Avenue from <br />1st Street S.E. to Stowe Avenue, it can be seen that-there are <br />forty (40) parcels of which 2 are 60 ft. in width, 2 are 65 ft. <br />in width, 5 are 75 ft. in width (the minimum requir ed) and. the <br />remaining 31 parcels are all 80 f t. or more in width. Further,- <br />of the 31 that are 80 ft, wide and greater, 12 lots are 100 f t. <br />_ or greater in width; the main point being that the existence of <br />the applicant's somewhat large parcel is not unique to the neigh- <br />borhood. <br />Much of the discussion has centered on lot width and there have <br />been recent cases where the Council has approved.a small variance <br />to subdivide a lot not having the required width. In these limited <br />ca es, however, the overall lot area for the new lots met or <br />exceeded the 10,000 sq. ft, standard for an R-1 district. The <br />lots proposed would be approximately 7900 and 7300 sq, ft, in <br />area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.