Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File nOlO <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 ^th <br />a physical and practical standpoint. Strucmres exist over lot lines, and the property has been <br />owned in conunon 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 sta^s <br />o^nion that because none of the three parcels individually meets the standard of Zonmg 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 fiilly in the June 5th letter. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1.As proposed, is the subdivision configured as a lot line rearrangement, or is it essentially <br />a replat? <br />2.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 />3.Is there any justification to allow two individual building sites on 2 acres of land in the <br />2 acre zoning district? <br />Should the City consider rezoning this property to 1 acre standards? A lot area variance <br />would still be required. The parcel does not abut another 1 acre zone, hence it would <br />certainly be looked at as spot zoning . . . <br />5.Can suitable residences be built on the two parcels within the hardcover allowances? <br />6.If subdivision of this 1.99 acre parcel is deemed not reasonably, can Planmng <br />Commission offer the applicant or property owner any other relief? For ^tance could <br />a portion 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 />applfcant is requesting direction from the Planning Commission as to whether this subdivision <br />is feasible, and if so, under what conditions. <br />li