12-10-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. Access - Existing house on Lot 22 uses access across Lot 21. Proposal is for a separate access for each lot on County Road 19, which wi l l require an access permit from Hennepin County. 2. Sewer - The house on Lot. 22 is connected to sewer. According to cur sewer as -built maps, no stub exists to serve Lot 21. Both Lot 21 and Lot 22 were assessed for footage and area, but only Lot 22 paid the $225 plant charge. A stub would have to be jacked under County Road 19 to serve Lot 21, and this cost would have to be borne by the developer. 3. Water_ both lots were assessed a footage charge and a unit charge, indicating they were considered as two sepa-ate building sites. Put, our as-builts show only one water stub to serve the two lots. Aga i:., installing a water stub to Lot 21 would be the responsibility of the developer. 4. Assessment History - Refer to Exhibit G - It appears from the tax history of the propoerty that at least since 1977 the two lots have carried a roughly equivalent taxable market value for the land portion, rather than an incremental value for the vacant lot. According to the previous assessor, these properties would have been scheduled for review again in 1965 and the vacant lot would likely have been placed on an increment value scale based on our current zoning policies. (With the increment. scale, and these lots considered as a single building site, the first x feet would be valued at a higher rate than the additional footage.) Based on the above, it appears that the lots have been taxed as two building sites. 5. Ownership History - The Johnstones have owned both Lots 21 and 22 since they inherited the properties from Mr. Johnstone's father in 1942. The lots have been separate for tax purposes since the beginning. 6. Hardcover Proposal - The applicants have proposed to build on Lot 21 and expand the house on Lot 22 per Exhibit E. They propose to use a porous pavement ( "Grass Pavers" - see Exhibit K) on the driveways in order to meet the hardcover limitations. The City Engineer has reviewed the literature and specifications of the product and in his opinion, if properly installed, the "Grass Pavers" would not be considered hardcover, hence both Lots 21 and 22 could adequacely meet hardcover requirements. 7. Setback Variance Required - The existing house 01. Tot 29 is setback only 3.1 feet from the property line of Lot 21. In a similar application, (Smiley on Pheasant Road) where the existing house was actually over the lot: line, the applicant was made to rearrange the lot lines to create 10' setback. In the Johnstone application, since the lakeshore setback pushes the new house site on Lot 21 a good distance nearer the road than the existing house, staff suggests that a side setback variance for the existing house is in order rather than a lot line rearrangement. B. Existing Garage is proposed to be removed when a house is built on Lot 21.