02-22-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1995 February 16, 1995 Page 4 will be no park dedication fees due with the current division. The future subdivision of 22 acres will be subject to a park dedication fee. Refer to Exhibit B, applicants’ addendum seeks special consideration for the boarding of horses on the 9+ acre parcel. Both the bam and riding arena are in excellent condition. Applicant seeks special consideration concerning the continued use of the property for ^ boarding of animals over the number allowed under Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) (Animals) that would only allow 6 horses on the property based on the 8.41 acres of dry land. Issues to be Resolved 1 Dedication of road and wetland areas. Applicant may best be advised to finalize division with a plat so that dedications can be completed with simple dedication language on the plat mylar rather than the creation of long metes and bounds descriptions. The smaller parcel to the south side would be designated as an ouUot. With the dedication of roadways, this parcel will now have a separate PID. The substandard outlot will be formally recognized as an unbuildable lot and may be offered for sale to adjacent landowners on the south side or legally combined with the homestead parcel on the north side. As for the right-of-way adjacent to the 22 acre parcel, if the property is platted the dedication can be completed with the current division and, if not, set aside for a later platting of the property. 2. Accessory structure code/non-conforming structures. Applicants must be advised of the fumre need to remove the nonconforming struemres on the 22 acre parcel containing no residence. The City normdly recommends a year from the date of final subdivision approval. Planning Commission should establish a date and include in formal recommendation. As already noted above, the oversized accessory structures were legally constructed with the required building permits and per a zoning code that had no limits on the area of structures or the number on a property. The two oversized accessory structures became non-conforming in 1989 with the passage of the code amendment and not as a result of this proposed division. The oversized accessory structure table refers to a maximum allowance up to 9+ acres. If the parcel remained at 31.2 acres, the structures are still non-conforming. In early discussions with the applicant, there was the issue of whether the City would require the removal of the bam and arena as a condition of subdivision approval. In the review of the former and current codes, the proposed subdivision would appear to have no impact on the conformity of the accessory structures. What is the Planning Commission ’s position on this matter? a. b.