07-10-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o o Zoning File #1405 May 11, 1989 Page 2 of 5 Review of Application - The Colwells are the new owners of the former residence- property of Sheldon Jacobs. The plat involves the creation of three residential lots, each containing minimum two acres of dry contiguous lands. The defined marsh areas within the plat shall be shown as drainage easements on the final plat and the City will ask for the appropriate Flowage & Conservation easement over the wetland areas already not covered under a municipal Flowage & Conservation easement. The previous lot line rearrangement between Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Schoen required the Flowage & Conservation easement over the southern marsh area. Please refer to Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C) noted above and Exhibit E. The 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. Hennepin County Highway Department has approved the curb cut fc the driveway but the applicant has failed to submit it as part of the application. Applicant should be advised to submit it prior to the subdivision being presented for Council's preliminary action. Issues for Consideration With 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 yard setback. Based on your current ordinance, only oversized structures would be required to meet the minimum 30' side setback. Applicant should bo 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 : ot 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. In other words, the accessory structure would have to be removed if a building permit has not been issued for a principal ;esidence within one year of the date of the final approval of the plat. If approved, the following conditions may apply;