Laserfiche WebLink
Tos <br />5': <br />I <br />X <br />I <br />■h <br />Mayor Peterson and City Council <br />Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator <br />Froas <br />Dates <br />Subject t <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdministraX|» <br />July 17, 1991 V *July 17, 1991 <br />#1604 Clair 6 Lynn Rood, 2215 Kenwood Way - <br />Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Resolution <br />4 <br />\ <br />List of Ixhiblte ~ <br />A - Applicants' Letter of 7/15/91 Re: Legal Combination <br />B - Final Grading Plan <br />C - Code Section Regarding Accessory Use <br />D - Memo/Resoli.tion/Exhibits 7/2/91 <br />DieeuesloB - <br />Please review the memo and exhibits of July 2, 1991. Also, <br />please read the applicants' letter requesting that the <br />requirement for legal combination be omitted. <br />In regard to this request, a review of the final grading <br />plan (Exhibit B) suggests a number of points: <br />1. While the primary grading will take place in Lots 54-55- <br />56, there 1^ some grading on the applicants' homestead <br />parcel . <br />2. The 931.5 elevation contour, which will be used to <br />create a legal description for the necessary Conservation t <br />Flowage Basement, appears to lie in all four tax parcels. <br />3. Lots 54 and 55 contain approximately 15,000 square feet <br />(0,34 acre) in this half acre zone. As applicant has shown <br />on the plan, additional acrea would have to be added to <br />make Lots 54 and 55 into a fu' ' propr-ed bv\i,ding site. <br />Staff's initial rv't-son for recommending the combination of <br />all four existing tax parcels is for clerical purposes. As-is, <br />the resolution and easement documents would have to be filed on <br />four individual parcels, making the legal descriptions somewhat <br />more cumbersome. <br />Ace—ory Dee Without Principal Ose - <br />It might also be argued that the pillars, retaining walls <br />and pond constitute an accessory use on lots with no permitted or <br />conditional principal structure or use (although its questionable <br />whether the walls and pillars can be considered as structures). <br />The Zoning Code Definitions and Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 <br />(attached) are clear on accessory structures without a principal <br />structural Definition 72 "Accessory Use" suggests that a <br />princiMi use, i.e. a legitimate permitted or conditional use, is <br />required before one can have an accessory use. Does Council <br />consider the pond/retaining wall/pi liars an a "use" subject to <br />needing a principal structure?