05-15-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I*:#-';;I Lots 2 and 1 so t 3C sstback - illdlng parmlt for d within ons year that accassory ory structura is limum 10* setback ring approximately 200* (hardship - ated within the r of Lot 1 should lasignatad wetland of-way for County It proposes a new shared access for ccess easement to te City's previous have always been ot for shared use riveway easement Ls will require thin Lot 3. The lave to be moved 18 acres. It is the same location &nge or expansion ite septic testing tecause the slopes ore gentle sloped served for septic m mm: ‘a. ! J'# 9tmm ■ ■” -y.=* .V&- • ' ■^v^' wWm ^•‘<1 p-^31 wk - '' m^m m^. s!:*> ;i-)r.:i.i Zoning Pile #1405 Nay 11» 1989 Page 2 of 5 wm mMilication -The Colwells are the new owners of the former residence property of Sheldon Jacobs. The plat Involves the creation of thxM residential lots* each containing minimum two acres of dry con^l9UOtts luidSe Th# d#fin€d Mirsh arMS within tha plat shall be shown as drainage easements on the final plat and the City will ask for the appropriate Plowage s Conservation easement over the wetland areas already not covered under a municipal Plowage s Conservation easement. The previous lot line rearrangement between Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Schoen required the Plowage t Conservation easesMnt over the southern marsh area. Please refet to Section 11.10. Subdivision 21 (C) noted above and Exhibit E. yhe applicant asks that Lot 2 and 3 continue to be served by the existing driveway. Lot 1 is to be served by a new curb cut off of County Road 84. The west corridor of Lot 1 adjacent to County Road 84 has been staked. Bennepin County Highway Department has approved the curb cut for the driveway but the applicant has failed to subaiit it as part of the application. Applicant should be advised to subsdt it prior to the subdivision being presented for Council's preliminary action. Issues for Consideration Mith This Subdivision Review > Lot Configuration - Lot 1 technically would require a variance to the required width standard because the lot does not meet the 200' width at the 50' setback line. The existing principal structure does not meet the required 30' side yard setback from the newly proposed division line. The minimum 30' setback must be maintained. The existing barn/garage can easily satisfy the 10' side setback. Based on your current ordinance, only oversised structures would be required to meet the minimum 30' side setback. Applicant should be asked why the lots have been designated so that the garage has been placed on a lot that does not contain a principal residence. The applicant may be asked to consider rearranging the lot line so that the accessory structure is Included with the principal residence on Lot 2 requiring a 10 minimum setback from the realigned side lot line. It may be the plan of the applicant to build on Lot 1 and to make use of the accessory structure. If this is the case, the same type of control can be placed on the now non-conforming structure as the City required of Ms. Cram in her subdivision. I** o^^er the accessory structure would have to be removed if a building permit has not been issued for a principal residence within one year of the date of the final approval of the plat. If approved, the following conditions may applyi H m.-- ^ Si:::.:/'Sri L, S:v -■■■ ■«J .///'?^ -li'SillMW.* .*.•» / mmmCVS-'' mM fi'S? mm ■■r- /-//"? :* I,. . r , ' -v'.; - :1J ^ mm Mf im ^ ■.p- '‘'ii W ,A mmm ■' '■ /* i ,.S ■ ' \ ■ y ■MmUJM mm m -y l '-. ••■ ■ '.*■■ ? . . • ■ ‘ M'- m-y'M ■ - • •■it, 'j* -:y- , urr.>---: i w-vtasmaam