07-12-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File ^1834 June 16, 1993 Page 2 Review of Application Refer to Exhibits D, F and G. Resolutions 3166 and 3167 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 allow them to gn 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 propeny 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 for applicant to 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 available 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 51’-100’ similar to subject lot, and 11 or 38% are at 101’-200 + ’. As for lot area, 10 or 34.4% are less than 12,500 s.f., 9 or 31% are equal to the subject property and 10 or 34.4% are greater than 12,500 s.f. but less than 32,000 s.f. Hardship Statement Refer to E.xhibit A. 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 app y for variance application as a condition of sale and prior to final resolve of the tax forfeiture properties to the irmnediate north. Development of the lot would be consistent with the pattern of development widiin the immediate neighborhood. Staff would also suggest that the findings set forth i^esolution No^ 3167 are also^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 concerns should be raised for applicant if it is necessaiy to resubmit for a setback variance with the final development stages of the property.^