Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2286 <br />September 11,1997 <br />Page 2 <br />the City... and where no flexible zoning application or extension of municipal utilities is involved". <br />Flexible zoning includes special or conditional use permits, variances, PUDs, and rezoning, none <br />of which apply to the proposed subdivision. <br />The applicant originally suggested that this lot split should be exempt from the subdivision process <br />because the definition of subdivision exempts those separations "where all the resulting parcels, <br />tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500' in width for residential uses..." <br />However, it appears to staff that the wetlands at the south end of the property are likely at the OHW <br />of Lake Minnetonka (although the 929.4 contour is not shown) and this may in fact be lakeshore <br />property. Assuming it is, the lot width is measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback, and <br />neither Parcels A nor B meet a 500' width at those locations, fherefore, staft' and the City Attorney <br />have concluded that this split is not exempt but must at least be considered a Class I subdivision. <br />Class I Subdivision Exempt from Park Dedication <br />The City's park dedication ordinance. Section 11.62, applies only to Class II and III subdivisions <br />based on the title of Section 11.62 "Parks and Playgrounds, Class II and III Subdivisions." <br />Therefore, this proposal is not subject to a park fee at this time. If the property is further divided in <br />the future via a Class II or III subdivisicn, park dedication would be required. <br />Merits of Proposed Division <br />The subdivision as proposed is potentially troublesome because the land north of Bayside Road is <br />zoned for 5 acre lot area minimum, but the proposed dividing line leaves a 4.7 acre tract north of <br />Bayside in Parcel A and a 7.8 acre tract in Parcel B. The westerly tract would be substandard (and <br />the City would likely be requested to grant a lot area variance) if that tract was ever proposed to be <br />platted as an individual building site in the future. The City should not place itself or the property <br />owner in the position of needing variances for future use of this property under current zoning. <br />Therefore, as a minimum the lot line should be moved to the east to make sure that there is at least <br />5 acres in the westerly tract Applicant would be well-advised to have a wetland determination <br />completed in the southwest portion of that tract, and add acreage to ensure 5 acres of dry buildable. <br />In the easterly parcel north of Bayside, a 0.3 acre wetland exists and staff would request that this <br />wetland shown on City and NWI maps be the subject of a Conservation and Flowage Easement. <br />On the south side of Bayside, each of the two parcels contains more than adequate area and width <br />to meet the RR-IB standards for individual building sites. Each of these tracts has the potential to <br />ba platted for 2 acre building sites in the future. <br />Based on available maps and air photos. Parcel A is technically a lakeshore lot and subject to the <br />•1