03-18-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#02-2763 February 27,2002 Page 2 The basic City premise is that the entire property as it exists today is only 3.66 acres. The legal descriptions in County records exclude the road, and the plat maps have shown the road at 66 ’ width since at least the mid 1950 ’s. Subdivision code Section ll.OJ.def. of Lx)t Area, Minimum excludes right of ways and road easements from the calculable lot area for subdivision, so the lot area caimot include the 33' used for Brown Road. Section 1 1.02, Subd. 10(A)(6) prohibits the granting of a variance that would vary the minimum requirements for a lot as set forth in the zoning chapter as applied to the entire subdivision; this has been interpreted to mean that within a subdivision, while some lots may be slightly undersized and others sli{^tly oversized, the average of all lots must meet the standard. In practice, we have rarely allowed any newly created lots to be undersized even when the subdivision average is conforming. Section 1 1 .03, Subd. 2.66, Definition of “Subdivisic;^, Classification”, defines the separation of lots previously combined as a Class 1 Subdivision, which means that they are exempt from platting but still must be approved via the subdivision process, and are still subject to the minimum lot standards. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 6(C) disallows the separation by transfer or sale of commonly owned nonconforming undeveloped lots in a contiguous arrangement, except when approved by Council. Therefore, even if Tract B or the S. 72' of Tract A (both vacant) had never been legally combined with the N. 160' of Tract A, it could be argued that merely selling off the vacant parcels would be prohibited without Council approval, and each of these would have required a variance in order to construct a home on them.