|
� � '��ti"��e� �� `� � ,
<br /> , ���Z (� ;.. � JrnC�e� ��Cc:,� ,�� � ��
<br /> ,
<br /> � _____ � l�
<br /> __ .
<br /> , I
<br /> �n " " ��. \C i�\ '. � 1\ I
<br /> � ✓
<br /> � ��r�'i � �;3 -- � ���j
<br /> ��.�J �� ' _ � i_� 3
<br /> � _ � ,,,,, . �;�f-= ,,� ,S6ss� or� �
<br /> ����,� ��
<br /> � < < �� - ��__,- ,�� ;� ��
<br /> �: �,�s � � � �,,, � �`�^ �, ^
<br /> �— � �
<br /> f _ �� v�� '.. �1, �, � .. ;
<br /> �
<br /> � � t<. �(,
<br /> c, �'Q
<br /> ��� ,�, �, � � , � . �� �,,�,�� r Z � N � �--�
<br /> TO: Ron Moorse, City Administrator `" �
<br /> � _ _ --
<br /> FROM:�� Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
<br /> DATE: December 4, 1992
<br /> SUBJECT: Sewer Unit Determination - 220 Bederwood Road
<br /> Summary
<br /> Apparently a question has arisen as to whether Council was aware that
<br /> a house once existed at 220 Bederwood Road, when Council was
<br /> determining the number of sewer units to provide to the Gustafson
<br /> properties. None of the three memos which ultimately led to a
<br /> decision contained this information.
<br /> A residence did exist on the westerly of the three vacant Gustafson
<br /> parcels until 1974, when that residence was razed by its owner, Mr.
<br /> Kadlec. The Gustafsons apparently purchased the property after the
<br /> structure was razed. �
<br /> Whether or not a residence existed on the subject property at some
<br /> point in the past should have no bearing on a determination as to
<br /> number of sewer units assigned. If the house existed today, the same
<br /> questions would be raised, i.e. should the nacant parcels to the rear�
<br /> (which are in fact owned in common with the vacant parcel which once
<br /> had a residence) be considered as a separate 2.2 acre building site
<br /> with no frontage on a public road and the front 0.6 acre vacant lot be
<br /> considered as a separate building site? Or, should the City attempt to
<br /> maintain its desired 2 acre density in this 2 acre zone by providing
<br /> one sewer unit to the total 2.8 acre combination of three commonly
<br /> owned vacant parcels?
<br /> Discussion
<br /> Realizing that the total Gustafson holdings including their homestead
<br /> lot is 3.6 acres, their total acreage would not a llow subdivision into
<br /> even two total lots if their acreage was all in one parcel. By
<br /> providing a sewer unit for the three vacant parcels, Council already �
<br /> has compromised _Qn its �lensity standards� by al lowing two u�,its _on 3.6
<br /> acres in the 2 acre zone. Allowance of a third unit, yielding a final
<br /> density of one unit per 1.2 acres, would be a significant density
<br /> concession.
<br /> Further, the house that was razed in 1974 was like ly constructed
<br /> before zoning codes were in effect. At the time it was razed, its 0.6
<br /> acre lot was zoned R-1C, requiring 1 acre, and would have needed a
<br /> variance to be considered buildable.
<br />
|