01-17-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Administrator Dad - t's son to construct a and contains 2 wetland 3 Outlot A of Katherine tal of 5 dry acres for Ln parcel, shown as Lot Lveway shown as Outlot Ls proposed due to the e east lot line. approved for Michael )0* outlet was approved building site might be :he existing homestead ea, hence there was no uation appears to be 1 in common ownership, it C. Then, if Lot 1 is could be widened to Bociated with a 3-lot : would likely require unusual occurrences, no longer meet a 10* :rom the new side lot n.i :4 'V. m 15V';-;-. Zoning File #1366 January 12, 1989 Page 2 of 3 Secondly, Lot 2 and Outlot A are intended to be considered as a single 5-acre parcel. Lot 2 contains 2.44 acres and Outlot A contains 2.79 acres of dry buildable area, for a total of 5.23 dry acres. This meets the letter and intent of the subdivision code which requires that at least 2 of the 5 acres of dry land must be contiguous. The applicant intends that the building site on the new lot will be within Lot 2 on the north side of the Luce Line Tr^l. The building envelope for that portion of property is shown in Exhibit E. Planning Commission may wish to consider whether the setback from the Luce Line should be 50* or 100*. In either case, this is an appropriate situation for use of the "special lot combination" document which is simply a resolution that recognizes the common relationship between Lot 2 and Outlot A, and which places a prohibition on selling Outlot A separately from Lot 2. 6.City Engineer Glenn Cook has reviewed the access location where Outlot C intersects Watertown Road. This is an existing driveway that serves the greenhouse operation. The Engineer has suggested that the access be improved to create a more level and perpendicular access to Watertown Road. This can be accomplished within the property boundaries. Mr. Butterfield has operated the commercial greenhouse on this property under a conditional use permit since 1972, although the operation existed many years before that before a conditional use permit was required. City files indicate that no limitation or conditions have even been placed on the minimum size of the property necessary to accommodate the operation, although in the early 1970s a 5-acre "farm operation" standard was apparently in effect. The current greenhouse operation would appear to use less than 1/3 of the 12 acres remaining in Lot 1, hence splitting off the 5 acre parcel for a single building site will have no effect on making the current Conditional Use Permit. Note that is this was considered as a "crop faxnn”, the minimum Conditional Use Permit standard for acreage is 10 acres. Discussion - The applicant states that he has no intent at this time to further subdivide Lot 1, and is only applying for the current subdivision in order that his son can build a home on the property. The building envelope for Lot 2 has been designated by staff on Exhibit E per the standards of the RR-IA zone, being 50* on the east and west lot lines, and 100* on the north lot line. There is no clear direction in the code that would define the south line of Lot 2 as a rear lot line, considering that the buildable lot area is intended to be continuous across the Luce Line. A conservative interpretation would be that the north right-of-way line of the Luce Line Trail should be considered as the rear lot line for Lot 2, and a 100* setback should be observed. The DNR has been asked to verify what setback they want maintained from their right-of-way, but no answer as of this writing. Also, if a 100* setback from the Luce Line is maintained for Outlot A, with the 26' wetland setback the buildable envelope in Outlot A is minimal at Zoning Fil< January 13 Page 3 of ^ best. Sta that no pr and Planni should be . Regar acres in a acre parci would be h be on the soil test! ground wai areas of L which are side of th evaluator sites for would cer’ However, without re Staff Reco Staf 1 Butterfiel 1. A Outlo 3. C The c of tl exist to Lc 4. a shal provd