09-15-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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