Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File /!^1845 <br />August 13, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />Mr. Lemmerman purchased the property in May of ’82 from the State of Minnesota as <br />forfeited land. The parcel consists ot 33,975 s.f. (.78 acres) and has been assessed tor sewer. <br />If the property met 80% of the lot area, the property could be developed without variance <br />approval. Note lot width is satisfied as property well exceeds the 140’ required width along <br />Tonkaview Lane at the 35’ street setback. It would be staffs opinion that if a variance was <br />requested for the property as it exists today, the area variance would more than likely be <br />approved. <br />The proposed lot line rearrangement will reduce the vacant lot to 19,600 s.f. or .44 <br />acres. Mr. Lemmerman ’s homestead now at 12,750 s.f. would be increased to 26,150 s.f. or <br />.6 acres. Review Exhibit G. Lemmerman has provided a development plan for the site showing <br />structure meeting all required setbacks. At your site inspection, review the topography of the <br />area. It would appear the division is proposed along a natural division line between the lower <br />elevations to the south and higher elevation at the north. Tne undeveloped lot has an unusual <br />shape a ’.d severe topographies. The severe drop in topography at southern part of property <br />would make the additional yard areas useless to future homeowner. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Would you approve an area variance for the lot now reduced to 19,600 s.f.? <br />2. Should the Lemmerman property be adjusted providing more area to the undeveloped <br />property at the building site? Lacking a topographic map, at this point it is difficult <br />to tell whether there would be a benefit to the building envelope but certainly this <br />should be a consideration at the time of the formal lot line rearrangement <br />3. Any other issues raised by Planning Commission