02-09-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MACKALL, CROUNSE 6 MOORE Ms. Kathleen Blatz Page 2 January 30, 1987 lot" is a lot between two "streets." Id. at 10.02(42). "Street" is defined narrowly under the City's ordinances to mean a public street, and not a private road. Id. at § 10.02(67). (Private roads are treated separately and defined as "street or road - private." Id. at § 10.02(68).) Lot 1 is between a private road and a public � street and is, therefore, not a "through lot as defined by the City's ordinances. I remind you that "[z]oning ordinances should be con- strued strictly against the City and in favor of the property owner." Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608 (Minn. 1980). As defined by the Ci ty�s ordi- nances, Lot 1 does not meet the definition of "through lot," and therefore cannot be made subject to the restrictions applicable to through lots. Since Lot 1 is not a through lot, and since it is contemplated that the front of Lot 1 shall be for all purposes Hollander Road, Lot 1 meets the frontage requirements as measured on Hollander Road, and rear lot width requirements as measured on County Road 6. No variance is necessary and the proposed lot line need not be re -drawn. Issue F deals with the non -conforming structures located on Outlot B. As we discussed in our previous telephone conversa- tion on January 19, 1987, the rule articulated by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Odell v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. App. 1984), clearly precludes the City from requiring the removal of non -conforming structures in the context of a subdivision hearing. The existing barns.nd farmhouse are non -conforming structures under the City's ordinances, and since the nature of the non-conformance of the structures will not be changed by the subdivision, the City has no authority to require the removal or alteration of those structures as a pre -requisite to granting the subdivision. Furthermore, I contend that the "guest house" lo- cater, or. Lot 1 is also a non -conforming structure (indeed, the previous City Council resolution relating to the original subdivi- sion of Holly Acres so found - see, Memorandum from Michael P. Gaffron to Mary Butler, Mayor, at. al., re: Subject No. 1090- Preliminary Subdivision -Public Hearing, dated November 11, 1986, at I. Introduction). Since the "guest house" is a non -conforming structure, it also falls under the rule of law articulated in Odell, and the City cannot require removal of the guest house as a pre -requisite to granting the subdivision. The Estate is not proposing that the guest house be retained as a rental unit, and does not seek approval of the continued use of the guest house as a rental unit. Rather, the Estate seeks to retain the guest house in its present state for use by the primary residence as a guest house. The Estate's