03-16-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2350 - 4196 North Shore Drive March 12, 1998 Page 2 that legally 'uncombining' Lot 57 from Lots 55-56 would require City subdivision approval. Staff further advised that this division would not be supported by staff because it would reduce the homestead parcel to less than 0.80 acres, which is the zoning code minimum for construction on existing lots of record in the 1 acre zone; and because it would potentially result in making an unbuildable lot buildable at the expense of an existing already substandard lot. Issues for Consideration 1. The subdivision code generally docs not allow the creation of tracts or parcels that will be substandard in size. When completing a lot line rearrangement such as this, the code does require that the remnant parcels must be combined w ith adjacent lots If Lot 57 is allowed to be separated from 55-56, it will have to be legally combined with Lots 58 thru 61. Applicants appear to have no problem with this. 2. Under the current proposal, the house at 4196 will remain on a tax parcel that is reduced from 0.81 acre down to 0.58 acres in a 1 acre zone. The 5 remaining lots (57 thru 61) would then be combined to create a lot containg 1.16 acre of which 0.46 acre is a wetland dominating the center of the lot. This becomes a 0.7 acre vacant lot w ith questionable flinctonal buildabilily due to the location of the wetland, which impacts the house location as well as access to North Shore Drive. 3. Would a combination of Lots 58-59-60-61 be granted variances for buildability without adding Lot 57? Variances likely required would include 1) wetland setback, 2) filling of w etland for driveway, 3) rear setback, and 4) lot area variance, since the dry area of the 4 lots is likely less than 0.5 acre and encroachment of the wetland eliminates credit for the wetland in a sew'ered area (see 10.55 Subd. 15 A 3). 4. If such variances would not be granted, would adding Lot 57 to 58-59-60-61 suddenly make them more buildable, eliminating the need to fill wetland for driveway? Would this be in essence making an already substandard lot even more substandaid in order to make an adjacent substandard lot buildable? 5. The 'common ownership' standards dictate that the City must consider Lots 58-59-60-61 on their ow n merits as a buildable group if a building permit/variance is requested (not part of the current application). The common ownership standards do noi suggest that the City must approve a lot line rearrangement to make them mo» buildable. Regarding Buildability of Lots 58-59-60-61 Any discussion of the proposed lot line rearrangement must to some extent consider the buildability of the remnant parcels: