Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1981 Page 3 <br />kdams moved to approve the subdivision of David Myhre subject <br />fc^o staff memo noting all the conditions of preliminary ap­ <br />proval in addition that the lot line be realigned so that the <br />10 ft. side yard setback is met: <br />1) The newly created lot and the remaining homestead lot <br />meet all the standards of the LR-lC zoning district. <br />2) Adequate sewer and wLc.er service for site and stubs <br />available for hook ui?. <br />and subject to the following conditions <br />1) Access to both lots shall be via the existing driveway - <br />no direct access onto Casco Point Road <br />Lot A must grant an access and utilities easement in <br />favor of Lot B. <br />Lot B is non riparian to Lake Minnetonka. City will <br />not approve nor recognize in the future an access ease­ <br />ment to the lake via Lot A or any abutting lakeshore <br />property. <br />All new construction and improvements on the site will <br />be limited to the hardcover allowance of 25% within the <br />75' - 250' setback area and 30% within the 250' - 500' <br />setback area. <br />Before a building permit can be issued the City staff <br />will review all proposed filling of the site along <br />Casco Point Road for adequate sizing of culvert and <br />approved ratio of slope. <br />Payment of Park Fee for Lot B in the amount of $440.00. <br />Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). <br />John C. Ericson, the applicant, was present. Rovegno noted JOHN C. ERICSON <br />for the record that there was a sink in the subject assessory 1620 Shadywcod Rd. <br />structure that was draining into the yard and that it is <br />necessary to correct this condition. <br />Jabbour noted that the assessed value was under $3,000 <br />and by right this should have been removed by 1978. <br />Structures like this, he noted, are allowed the normal <br />aunount of maintenance to keep the building safe but this <br />kind of repair involves major structural repair. This is <br />not consistent with the City's policy on non-conforming <br />structures, and the City has dealt with similar problems <br />in other Conditional Use Permits and this body has <br />always been consistent in this interpretation of policy. <br />Conditional Use <br />Permit <br />#622 <br />Adams noted that this building consists of. 250 sq ft. of <br />area and according to the fair market value of the struc <br />:ure it should have been removed by now. <br />Goetten noted that this is definately major structural <br />repair and not maintenance repair. <br />_J