Laserfiche WebLink
4300 Watertown Road <br /> June 18, 1999 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 31.203(3) states "it otherwise meets the requirements of of this or other applicable <br /> ordinances", it must meet all standards of Ordinance 172, which is the complete Zoning <br /> Ordinance adopted in 1974. <br /> 6. The only records in City files in reference to Johnson's legal combination of Lots 1-2-3, <br /> Block 1, Lots 1-2-3 Block 2 and Outlot A of Mark One are: 1) a legal combination request <br /> signed by Johnson and dated July 14, 1977; and 2) building permit No. 3580 dated July 25, <br /> 1977. <br /> 7. The only ways the City could have issued a permit for a residence in the location within Lot <br /> 1 Block 2 as proposed by Johnson in 1977,would have been 1)if a variance had been granted <br /> to lot area and front or side setback; or 2) if enough lots/ parcels were legally combine to <br /> result in a lot meeting the 5 acre minimum area standard and yielding a house location <br /> meeting setback requirements (100' front and rear, 50 sides). <br /> 8. The City relies on the process of legal combination to permanently define parcels for zoning <br /> purposes. Parcels which have been legally combined may not be separated without going <br /> through a subdivision process. City ordinances do not allow the creation of new substandard <br /> area lots in a new subdivision*. Judge Carey is apparently assuming that the City's <br /> authority for using the legal combination is only from the tax laws which discuss the legal <br /> combination only for tax purposes. He is ignoring the City's authority to regulate land <br /> use provided for elsewhere in the statutes. <br /> 9. On July 14, 1977 Johnson signed a request for legal combination of all 6 lots and Outlot A. <br /> The City subsequently relied on that combination to confirm that the building site met the <br /> 5-acre minimum lot area and 300'minimum lot width standards of the RR-1A zoning district, <br /> and that the proposed house location (see plat drawing with penned-in house location and <br /> 190'front setback dimension arrow)met the 100'front/rear and 50'side setback requirements. <br /> Although the house location and size penned into the above referenced drawing is clearly not <br /> to scale, said location clearly does not meet a side or front setback from Outlot A and would <br /> not have been approvable unless a combination was in effect. Judge Carey's memorandum, <br /> Paragraph 3,states that "a review of Hennepin County's Exhibits 1-6 clearly shows that <br /> the Johnson residence is built upon a lot which is in excess of one acre and meets all the <br /> requirements of Section 31.203". I believe such a review will clearly show exactly the <br /> opposite - that the house, if considered to be only governed by the boundaries of Lot 1, <br /> Block 2, clearly does not meet the street setback standard of 100'for residence structures <br /> in the 5-acre zone. <br /> *See item 11 <br />