Laserfiche WebLink
Lots of Record Amendment . <br /> September 12,2012 <br /> Page 2 . � <br /> Additionally, staff has found that the language adopted earlier this year in Section 78-72 <br /> regarding hardcover is somewhat confusing and will become obsolete as soon as the new . <br /> Hardcover Ordinance is adopted. A revision to three sections of 78-72 is proposed to resolve <br /> these issues. <br /> Issues Addressed by Proposed Amendment <br /> I. LotArea & Width -Remove 80%Provision. Section 78-72(b)(1) allows sewered record lots <br /> in the 1/2-acre and 1-acre zones to be developed via administrative approval (without a variance <br /> process) if said lots meet 80% of the lot width and lot area for the zone. Of course, a11 other <br /> zoning requirements must be met. <br /> � Whv 80%? The 80%provision was adopted in 1975; prior to that time, developing a <br /> nonconfornung record lot of�size required Council approval. There are any number.of � <br /> � possible reasons why the 80% standard was chosen as being acceptable for development without <br /> a variance process; staff has not researched this and it's entirely possible that no documentation <br /> exists as to why this percentage was chosen. It is likely that a lot meeting 80% of the LR-1C 0.5 <br /> acre/100' width or LR-1B 1.0 acre/140' width would potentially not need other variances and <br /> would contain a suitable buildable envelope. <br /> Through the years staff has noted that many e�sting developed properties and vacant lots not <br /> meeting the 80% standard have needed just a lot width and/or area variance in order for a new <br /> home or teardown/rebuild to occur; in cases where all other zoning standards were met,these <br /> area/width variance applications have generally been approved with little or no discussion, <br /> usually on the consent agenda, and seem to serve no real purpose. <br /> In comparing our standards with those of other west metro cities for allowing nonconforming <br /> shoreland lots of record to be considered buildable, the standards and requirements are quite <br /> � variable: <br /> Minnetrista: Must be separate ownership since effective date of ordinance; sanitary and <br /> dimensional requirements must be met"insofar as practical". Non-shoreland: must meet <br /> 50%of zoning district standard for area and width. <br /> Shorewood: Must be separate ownership, must meet 70%of area and width requirements; <br /> sanitary and dimensional requirements must be met"insofar as practical"; requires approval <br /> of a `shore impact plan'. <br /> Mound: Must be separate ownership since effective date of ordinance; in shoreland must be <br /> at least 6,000 s.f. or 10,000 s.f depending on zoning district; must meet setback requirements. <br /> Victoria: Must be separate ownership since effective date of ordinance; setback requirements <br /> met;no minimum size established.Non-shoreland: must meet 2/3 of width and depth <br /> � requirement. <br /> Medina: Shoreland lots not addressed separately; for non-sewered,must be separate <br /> ownership, 1 acre, meet setbacks. <br /> Minnetonka: Ordinance matches statute language word-for-word <br />