10-13-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r I hf Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 3 October 10, 1997 Zoning File #2298 _____ West Femdale to the peninsula. The peninsula is physically contiguous only to 905 West Femdale, even though its use and maintenance appears to have a significant impact on views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. The hardcover ramifications are minimal from a numerical standpoint and inconsequential from a practical standpoint. Notwithstanding the applicant's rationale for this division/combination, and in spite of the Planning Commission's majority recommendation to approve, staff does not recommend approval of this request, based on the lack of contiguity. The City normally only recognises contiguity either by direct adjacency of land parcels or separation only by a roadway. The existing situation has both adjacency and contiguity. The proposal has neither. Finally, there is a concern about setting a precedent by allowing the combination of parcels that are physically separated by a body of water. Does the degree of separation matter? For instance, would someone who owns property on Big Island claim the City should allow legal combination with a tract on the mainland they use for dock purposes? The Zoning Code would not allow the creation of such a mainland dock tract. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council is requested to determine whether the proposed subdivision/combination will be approved, and direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution. Options for action include: 1.Conceptually approve subject to legal combination of Lot 13 with parcels that make up (or ultimately will make up) 980 West Femdale Road; or if Hennepin Courity wUl not combine across the lagoon, approve the concept of a "special lot combination resolution to be filed in the chain of titles of all affected properties, recognizing a unique relationship between Lot 13 and the mainland property at 980, and disallowing future separation or separate sale of those properties without City approval. 2,Conceptually deny based on the lack of contiguity and adjacency as well as the potential for setting a negative precedent. 3. Table for further consideration. 4.Other. Note: Items of recent correspondence on related topics are included for Council s information