Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. David R. Carlson October 12, 1992 Page 2 approximately 102'. Arguably, one could arbitrarily define the width as the average of two measurements yielding an average width of 181'. This would need a 30' side setback which for discussion purposes I have used and shown on the map. This leaves a building envelope roughly 50' wide and averaging perhaps 80' deep. 4. Given the locations of adjacent structures on either side, an average lakeshore setback variance is needed for 620, and possibly for 610 depending on 620's ultimate location. 5. The minimum required lot area per the RS Districts standards is not at issue since both 610 and 620 are defined per 10.31, Subd. 6(F) as substandard buildable record lots as per their ownership and acreage on November 9, 1981. (Note that 10.31, Subd. 6[A] suggests that a record lot is "all the contiguous or abutting land owned in common... on November 9, 1981 or at any time such common ownership may occur thereafter. However, additional language later in 10.31 suggests that a lot combination would have to take place in order to create any new record lot from these. Given the circumstances, your mere ownership of both Pegelow' s property and your property does not change their status as two separate record lots). 6. A lot area variance resolution was adopted in 1986 for 620. However, while Pegelow applied for a "principal use conditional use permit" in 1983, the lot area variance resolution was never completed. This merely means Pegelow lost the right to appeal the determination that his four lots constitute a record lot. That seems to no longer be an issue. Before the City could issue building permits, and as part of your proposed activity, the City would require all tax parcels within each record lot be combined and would include the lot area variance language as part of your proposal. 7. Although there may be other ways than an easement to accommodate the septic system situation (creation of an outlet rather than an easement, for instance), City staff would not generally oppose this shared septic system proposal, and it seems to provide a reasonable solution to a dilemma which other Big Island property owners will be facing in the near future. 8. I think it is understood but I'll note for the record that any new construction or building replacement within either property must meet all setback standards or be granted a variance.