Re: request for council action/subdivision

Home Browse Search

#2466 Renckens & Winston May 21, 1999 Page 4 3. Section 11.31 Subd.2, "Lot Dimensions"states in part that"Where lots are more than double the minimum required area for the zoning district, the City may require that such lots be arranged so as to allow further subdivision and the opening of future streets where they would be necessary to serve such potential lots...". The current plat does not allow for further subdivision except by'stacking'back lots,with long driveways and more difficult emergency and service vehicle access. . 4. Section 11.31 Subd. 5, "Double Frontage Lots,Access to Lots and Front/back Lot Divisions" in Subd. 5(C), "Front/back Lot Subdivisions" states that" 'Flag lots'and'easement back lots' as defined in this Chapter shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions shall be allowed only in conjunction with the creation of an outlot to provide access from the back lot to the public or private road. Such outlot shall not be allowed as creditable lot area for either the back of front lots." Subd. 5(C)(1a) states "Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side by side split (that's not the case here, the property is 460' in width, could easily yield two 200'+ lots), but acreage is adequate to provide a front lot and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded." The primary reason applicants wanted to avoid creating a 30'driveway outlot extending from Watertown Road was this loss of creditable area,not for the current subdivision,but because without it a future subdivision would need a lot area variance. It seems to staff that creation of a back lot for this site is basically in conflict with the intent of this ordinance. Furthermore, Subd. 5(C)(1b) states that"Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual 'lot splits'but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors." When does a'convenience' change into a'unique supporting site factor'? Is lack of the adequate lot area to meet all code requirements a unique factor, or simply an inconvenience?Is the location of septic sites a unique factor? When septic sites are limited by topography,does that become a unique factor? Is the need to provide stormwater ponding which can't be credited toward lot area, a unique factor? Part of the problem is that this property likely can ultimately support three lots, and the City risks 'piece-meal development' when the front-lot/back-lot ordinance is varied from, especially where future development of a back lot may be possible. Note also that based on applicants'request that the 50'road outlot be omitted,then a lot width variance is technically required for the north lot,which will have only 50'of width on Crystal Creek Road and 30' on Watertown Road where 200' is required. Which road frontage will define the front lot line?