Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File /Jf2070 <br />September 15, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br />Lot Area Variance/Existing Lots of Record <br />Please carefully review the June 5,1995 letter to Mr. Maeser. Clearly, the City has viewed this <br />property to-date as a single entity for zoning and sewer assessment purposes. Even though the <br />property exists as three separate tax parcels, the use of those parcels has overlapped from both <br />a physical and practical statKipoint. Structures exist over lot lines, and the property has been <br />owned in common as a single entity for many years. <br />Specifically review scenarios 2 and 3 on pages 2 and 3 of the June 5th memo. It is staffs <br />opinion that because none of the three parcels individually meets the standard of Zoning Code <br />Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A-2) regarding buildability of lots of record, the City is not forced to <br />grant buildability. This concept is addressed more fully in the June 5th letter. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />As proposed, is the subdivision configured as a lot line rearrangement, or is it essentially <br />a replat? <br />If there any justification to allow the access corridor to Parcel B to be part of Parcel B? <br />Should it, as required in the back lot ordinance, be a separate outlot? Should it meet the <br />30’ minimum width required for such access outlots? <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. Is there any justification to allow two individual building sites on 2 acres of land in the <br />2 acre zoning district? <br />4 Should the Citv consider rezoning this property to 1 acre standards? A lot area variance <br />would still be required. The parcel does not abut another I acre zone, hence it would <br />certainly be looked at as spot zoning . . . <br />5. <br />6. <br />Can suitable residences be built on the two parcels within the hardcover allowances? <br />If subdivision of this 1.99 acre parcel is deemed not reasonably, can Plannmg <br />Commission offer the applicant or property owner any other rclietV For instance, could <br />a porti of the property be sold to an adjacent property owner and still leave a <br />reasonable building site? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Please review the various attachments which detail the issues with this proposal. Mr. <br />Bruecceman will be prepared at the meeting to show how two houses might be placed on the <br />two parcels meeting the setback and hardcover requirements. Because this is a sketch plan, the <br />applicant is requesting direction from the Planning Commission as to whether this subdivision <br />is feasible, and if so, under what conditions.