Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File Jl^l958 <br />August 8. 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />W <br />4. Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (C) (6) - Average lakcshorc setback. <br />5. Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (L) - Hardcover limiiaiions. <br />6. Section 11.03, Subd. 2 - Definitions. <br />Definition 65 (c) - Subdivision approval required when lot line rearrangement involves <br />lots that do not meet the standards of the zoning district. <br />Definition 66 (b) - Class II subdivision. Subdivision may involve the vacation of existing <br />drainage and utility easements platted along the existing lot lines, subdivision will involve <br />the dedication of new drainage and utility easements along the newly defined lot line and <br />sewer utility easements along west side of property, refer to Exhibit I. <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Application <br />B • Plat Map <br />C - Property Owners ’ List <br />D - Existing Development <br />E-1-4 Options of Redevelopment Considered in 1992 Sketch Plan Review (Application <br />#1769) <br />F - Legal Description of Property <br />G - Survey of Replat <br />H - Gustafson Report <br />I - Sewer As-Built <br />Review of Application <br />The current subdivision application involves the replatting of three separate parcels into <br />two lots, review Exhibits D and G. The three parcels had originally contained four residential <br />units, all units were rented by applicant. The properties are served with sewer and water and <br />have been assessed for four units. <br />In a 1992 sketch plan review, the City was asked to consider various options for <br />development. Applicant preferred a Planned Residential Development of four units, refer to <br />Exhibit E-1. Because of the special tiering requirements for the placement/location of residence <br />structure within a PRD, multiple variance approvals would have been required by the <br />Department of Namral Resources along with the City. Review Exhibits E-2-4, options of <br />redevelopment of the property were considered ranging from a two unit PRD, replat oi three lots <br />into two lots, and redevelopment of the three existing lots. If lots were to be developed in their <br />current configurations, multiple and e.xcessive variances would have been required. The