03-14-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1905 February 17, 1994 Page 2 Terrace are substandard in area and do not meet the required 1 acre minimum lot size. The additional lands will improve lot area. Mr. Powers has assumed the responsibility for dividing the three parcels for future connection to his own homestead lot and to the two, northern residential lots. Staff has been advised that Mr. and Mrs. Famand, the owners of Lot 5, wish to acquire the additional area. Lot 6 is being offered for sale and it is the hope of applicant to sell parcel to fiimre land owner or maintain as part of Power ’s homestead. Mr. Powers ’ attorney has been made aware that the City does not allow substandard lots to be created without being legally combined with adjacent homestead parcels. As Mr. Famand is not an active participant in this application, if this subdivision is approved as proposed, Mr. Powers would have to legally combine Parcels A, B and C with his homestead parcel Lot 7. The legal combination of Parcel C with Lot 5 could take place without the resolve of Parcel B. It would be impossible for Parcel B to be combmed with Lot 6 prior to the legal combinations of Parcel C with Lot 5. Section 10.55, Subd. 15 (A-3) would allow a property served by sewer to achieve credit for the wet area as long as the wet areas do not exceed the dry buildable - dry 1.29, wet .73. Please review Exhibits G, H and I. The intent of the City was to maintain above all the standards of the RR-IB mral residential no matter if sewer was provided to the property. The specific notice was set in place as Mr. Powers had expressed an interest in acquiring an easement over the property to achieve access to the adjacent golf course. Planning Commission members advised that such an easement would have to be excluded from the dry buildable area of Lot 2. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. 4. Have the applicants provided adequate supportive information for Council to reconsider its original ruling on the rural dry buildable in the subdivision of Fairway Hills Addition? Although the lot is oddly configured and contrived to satisfy the rural contiguous dry buildable, would you recommend to the Council to reconsider based on the findings that substandard Lots 5, 6 and 7 will be increased in area. Would this area ever function as additional yard area for this property? If you support the current lot line rearrangement application, how many parcels should be created in the northern corridor? 1, 2 or 3 as proposed? Remember Parcel B could not be sold to Lot 6 before Parcel A is sold to Lot 5 in the current three parcel configuration.