06-21-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1834 June 16. 1993 Page 2 Review of Application Refer to Exliibits D, F and G. Resolutions 3166 and 31b7 were approved by the City on Aucust 10, 1992. Lots 3 and 4 to the immediate north of the subject property were not approved for sewer as it was the intent of the property owner to continue not paying real estate taxes and to aMow them to go tax forfeit. Upon tax forfeiture, the lots would be released to adjacent property owners. Per Resolution No. 3167, it would appear the intent of the City was to allow the future developer of Lots 5 and 6 to acquire the parcels in order to increase lot area and bring lot width into conformance. The applicant has advised that the property owner to the immediate north of Lots 3 and 4 is not interested in acquiring the properties. The only other property owner that may have a right to purchase the properties would be the property owner to the immediate west. Review Exhibit D. 125’ of lot depth and the 100 ’ total setback area (50 ’ front and rear) limits the depth of the building envelope to 25’. No matter how much additional area the applicant acquires, it may be necessary tor applicant io apply for a front or street setback variance. Mrs. McCarty has to proceed with the current application in order to meet the conditions of the purchase agreement and to ensure that she receives official notice from the County when the tax forfeiture properties are availat'’"' for sale. Review Exhibit E. Staff has completed an area and width inventory of sewered properties within the Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka plat. Of the 29 parcels, 10 or 34% are 50 ’ or less in width, 8 or 29% are 5T-100 ’ similar to subject lot, and 11 or 38% are at 101 ’-2(X)+’. As for lot area, 10 or 34.4% are les; than 12,500 s.f., 9 or 31% are equal to the subject property and 10 or 34.^1% are greater than 12,500 s.f. but less than 32,000 s.i. Hardship Statement Refer to Exhibit .. The lot is 12,500 s.f. and subject to 2 acre zoning standards. The lot was platted prior to present zoning standards. Applicant must apply for variance application as a condition of sale and prior to final resolve of the tax forfeimre properties to the immediate north Development of the lot would be consistent with the pattern of development within the immediate neiehborhood. Staff would also suggest that the findings set forth in Resolution No. 3167 are aiso^appropriate in consideration of the area and width variance. The substandard parcel is now sewered. Issues for Consideration 1 Although not required to have a conceptual development plan tor the property, what concerr.3 should be raised for applicant if it is necessary to resubmit for a setback variance with the final development stages of the property?