Laserfiche WebLink
Date Application Received: 6/21/05 <br />Date Application Considered as Complete: 6/21/05 <br />60-Day Review Period Expires: 8/20/05 <br />To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />Mike Gaffron, Planning Director <br />July 14, 2005 <br />Subject: #05-3128 Gregory O'Connor/Richard Fruen, 400/410 Big Island <br />-Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement -Public Hearing <br />Zoning District: RS Seasonal Recreational District, 5-acre minimum <br />Lot Areas: <br />400 Big Island: <br />410 Big Island: <br />Existing <br />17,300 s.f. ± (0.40 ac.) <br />36,300 s.f. ± (0.83 ac.) <br />Proposed <br />20,600 s.f. ± (0.47 ac.) <br />33,000 s.f. ± (0.76 ac.) <br />Application Summary: Applicants request approval for a lot line rearrangement between <br />these two recreational parcels. <br />Pertinent Code Sections: <br />Section 78-568/569/570: RS District Standards <br />Minimum lot area required= 5.0 acres dry buildable <br />Minimum lot width required = 200', but no lot line rearrangement shall reduce any <br />record lot width to less than 50'. <br />Side Yard Setback: 1 O' for record lots less than 100' in width <br />List of Exhibits <br />A-Application <br />B -Plat map <br />C -Survey -Existing & Proposed Lot Lines <br />D -Airphoto <br />E -Correspondence <br />F -Hennepin County Approval Form <br />G -Property Owners List <br />Background <br />Each lot contains a seasonal cabin. 410 also has a shed and an extensive retaining wall system <br />holding up the steep bluff at the lakeshore. No new construction or activity is proposed. The lot <br />line rearrangement is intended to resolve a historical encroachment issue that applicants thought <br />had been resolved via a deed exchange in 1986, but which never received City approval. The <br />cabin on 400 Big Island encroaches approximately 1.4' onto 410 Big Island. The 10' property <br />exchange leaves one corner of the 400 Big Island cabin 8.6' from the lot line, where 10' would <br />be required, but staff has concluded that requiring applicants to revise all their deeds and past <br />actions to gain the extra 1 .4' is not justified.