02-09-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1090 January 16, 1987 Page 2 of 3 C. Regarding existing garage that was to be removed as part of the original Holly Acres subdivision, applicant's attorney states in his letter of 1/7/87 that the estate agrees to remove said garage. John Hollander has stated that he hopes to accomplish this as soon as possible. He also indicates he wishes to build a new garage, and staff notes that since proposed Lot 2 is in effect a "through lot•, any detached accessory structures requires a conditional use permit review per Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 10. Also, no building permits can generally be issued for outlets, and a stipulation of the original subdivision was that no permits for accessory or principal structures on Outlot B would be issued until completion of its subdivision. Staff recommends that part of Planning Commission's recommendation to Council be removal of the existing non-confoming garage prior to final plat approval (more strict than 11/11/86 -.mo). Staff further recommends that applicant apply for a con,: '.:,onal use permit for location of a new detached garage on proposed Lo,. 2, such permit to be issued only if conditional use permit approval is granted and after the subdivsiion is filed with Hennepin County. D. Regarding existing access to County Road 6 that was to a removed as part of original subdivision. Letter of 1/7/87 indicates the estate agrees to removal of this access driveway. Staff recommends that the required access removal e�rmit be acquired by the applicant from Hennepin County Department of Highways (Dave Zetterstrom, 935-3381) and that the access be eliminated by regrading prior to final plat approval (this is a more strict time frame than recommended in 11/11/f6 memo). E. Regarding the existing barns on proposed Lot 2, staff has not made a formal hazardous building inspection of the barns, however the previous staff recommendation (Item 4, Page 4 of 11/11/86 memo) to require their removal still stands. John Hollander notes that he does not agree to removal of the barns, on the Lasis that a) he needs the storage space; and b) the costs of removal are prohibitive and would negate a great share of his realized inheritance. Of cours4, this is his problem. We suggest ha contact his local fire department to see whether they would consider burning the barns. F. Staff recommendations per memo of 11/11/86, specifically Items 1, 6, 7, and 8, still apply. Staff feels per rmcommendtion 7, that since we are requiring elimination of any access to County Road 6 for Lot 1, it is not necessarily reasonable to require the lot width measured at 50' from County Road 6 to be 200' if it meets 200' measured at 50' from the private road where actual access is designated. Powever, if Planning Commission recommends the change it is certain' .sibie and will amount to only 0.02 acre trade-off.