Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 10/23/1989

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 7 of 9 As for the reference to Jeanne Mabusth advising Mr. Lanier that a future developer would have to bring the exception into compliance with the subdivision regulations is unfortunately incorrect, but wouldn't it be wonderful. I have been with the City for 11 years and since that time there have been two subdivisions where Outlots were created adjacent to substandard parcels (The Ski Tonka Subdivision and the Victoria Estates). Each was a lot created without subdivision approval by the City and the original seller was still the owner of the properties to be developed around that substandard parcel. The substandard parcels were not Lrought up to the area requirement for the zoning district rather the Outlots were created to prov.ii3 expansion area for future septic needs. At the time Lanier had his property for sale Alan Carlson was considering purchasing the Lanier property. Carlson was advised that if he acquired the substandard parcel that the lot lines would be erased and he would be responsible for bringing that substandard parcel up to current code compliance. It would appear per Exhibit P Mr. Lanier had been attempting to bring his property into two acre compliance since 1957. Review Exhibit 0 Mr. Carlson's letter of June 1988 is even more confusing where there is discussion that the City would require him to give land to Mr. Lanier because his property did not meet the current standard. This City had never required anyone to give land up with out being paid. In fact, at the time the City created the Outlots in the other two referenced subdivisions, these outiots were set aside for purchase at the time the areas were needed for future septic development. Clearly we have no authority in our ordinances to bring substandard parcels adjacent to development up to code, but we would certainly encourage it. In light of the revised plan there is adequate area in Lot 7 to allow for the creation of a separate outlot for future septic expansion but only if the developer would agree. Once again there are only two conditions that would provide the City with authority tc 'ema-j that a substandard parcel adjacent to development be )ugflt up to current code standards: created illegally and considered in v4.:.iat`ion of th-o subdivision regulations of the City. If developer purciiased substandard parcels adjacent 1 lands to be developed. As for Item 4 the aonlicant will provide plantings along Fox Street and Leaf Street and if the City wishes may provide addit.cnal planting3 along tc*.., road areas. Please review the property owners check off list 1 *,through 6 (Ehibit Q). Item I. Neither the City ner the County Jdit.iOT s 1 curb cut of f of Lea f S;_reet or Fox 1.9 provided via the interior., p. :': road. The r Yed that thq developer reassurre- this in the The developer should be asked to comment. will approve an Street when access land owners have pi vate covanents.