VN-222 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STAFF COMMENTS A. Minor Subdivision Staff feels that the request for a minor subdivision is consistent with the•regu7ations of Section 26-24 of the New Brighton Sub- division Ordinance. The property has been properly surveyed and is small in size and the lots as proposed are well-.defined. There are no irregular shaped lots proposed and the design .and layout of the lots are consistent with the surrounding lots. .B. Variance Request The property in question is approximately 2.29 feet wide wiii:ch could be divided into three (3) lots of approximately 76 feet in width. The lots as designed well exceed the required 10,000 square feet in area and average. approximately ]1,000+ square feet. There is an existing house in the westerly portion of this property which pre- cludes the applicant from platting the three (3} lots on County Road "D" into three (3) equal lots.. The existing house is in good condition and is comparable in size with surrounding properties. The hardship that would be somewhat unique to the specific property is that the applicant in order to subdivide the property into three (3) lots meeting the zoning code would have the following options: 1. Subdivide the property so that the house does not have the necessary five (5) front side yard setback; 2. Remove the house and subdivide the property into three (3) equal lots of 76 feet in width; 3. Subdivide the property into only two (2) lots with approximately-715 feet in width by 157 feet deep; and 4. That the applicant subdivide the property into three (3) lots giving the existing house the required five (5) foot setback and having one of the remaining lots on County Road "D" with less than the required 75 feet in width. It is staff's contention that it would be a hardship and not an efficient design of a subdivision to require that the applicant only provide for two (2) lots on County Road "D". It would also seem impractical and from a housing standpoint undesirable to relocate or remove an existing house that is in good physical condition. Therefore the best option seems to be the selection of option #4, to subdivide the property into three (3) lots resulting in a variance for less lot width for one of the lots. ~. It is somewhat unique to be considering a minor subdivision request request involving two streets. The proposal that the applicant has provided indicates symetrical lots that align themselves with the proposed lots to the rear adjacent to 7th Street SW. Because the lot lines are symetrical and continuous there will be an avoidance of problems in the future in regard to confusion over property boundaries. .The lots that are proposed by this minor subdivision are. consistent in size and shape with surrounding properties. It .would appear it would be a hardship for the applicant to be _ required to have two excessively large lots on County Road "D" in comparison with surrounding proper't`i es .