05-13-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t V v'v P'f-M-I m: ’^'Mm-KI i" V':. k. m 'HA- te''p" &W- ??:• M-I; 0-" cv> i:^-’ To: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building 6 teto:April B, 1991 Planning Coimnission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Coiiimission Members City Administrator Bernhardson ^ Zoning Administr^iQjy ^ #1631 Charles t Ann Honuneyer, 475 Linden A^^^S^v Variance - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) - Applicant seeks renewal of a lot area variance granted November 23, 1987. Once again as with the original application, there is no plan for development. Applicants merely seek approval of a buildable lot for future development. Subject:A<^, List of Bshibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit Z - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Application Applicants' Addendum Property Owners List Plat Map Staff Memo of 2/9/87 Staff Memo of 11/13/87 Staff Memo of 11/19/87 Survey Lot Survey of 21 Lot Neighborhood As-built of Sewer Service Topography/Hater shed Cook's Update Report 4/3/91 Approval Resolution #2300, Approved 11/23/87 Review of Renewal Application - Please review the enclosed staff memos for more detail and background on this area variance application. No changes are proposed frosi the original application. As with the earlier review, drainage is the major concern. The City Engineer has been asked to review the current application for comment (see Exhibit L). Gustafson asks for drainage plans prior to construction on property. Please review the approval resolution that sets forth the findings and conditions of the earlier approval. If approved, staff would recosuiend the adoption of the former resolution with one minor change to oaiit the condition that would ask for a Park Dedication Pee of $390.00. Staff is reminded that there is no clear authority with the current Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to ask for Park Dedication for lots previously platted. Staff recalls with the earlier review the hesitation on the part of members of the Planning Cosimission to act on a lot area variance application without building plans for development. If NemA>ers can find something in our Code that would suggest we are limited in reviewing and acting on this area variance. Members may chose to table and ask for development plans. Absent any clear direction in the Code, staff recommends approval of the renewal variance subject to the findings and conditions of Resolution #2300, but excluding Condition #2.