07/27/1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Concerning the subdivision request, the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 10,800 square feet in the R -1 Zoning District. Corner Lots must be a minimum of 100 x 135 and interior lots a minimum of 80 x 135. Parcel A meets the requirements of the Ordinance with no additional right -of -way dedication but is approximately 10' deficient in lot depth with the dedication of 14' of right -of- way. (This assumes that Elm Street is the front property line) The total area for Parcel A is 15,125 after row dedication. Parcel B is 12,720 square feet in area, adequate in lot width and 10' deficient in lot depth thereby requiring a variance for lot depth. In May of 1992, the Council passed a Resolution granting a "blanket" variance to lots immediately south of this subdivision. The blanket variance was for Lots 5 through 13 in Ulmers Rice Lake Addition that allowed the existing 150' wide Tots to split off the eastern portion of their property into two 75' wide Tots. Utilities were provided along Snow Owl Lane for two service stubs per 150' wide parcel in Ulmers Rice Lake Addition. Of the 9 Tots referenced in the Resolution, only two remain vacant. Resolution No. 92 -64 detailing the rationale for granting the blanket variances is attached for Council information. For Council information, two service stubs were provided for the parcel in question tonight along Snow Owl Lane. The Tots in question will be 125' deep rather than the required 135' with a total lot area of 12,625 sq. ft. for Parcel B, and 15, 125 sq. ft. for Parcel A. The Lots with the blanket variance have an average of 10,875 square feet of lot area at 75 x 145. The criteria to be used when evaluating a variance is as follows: A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could remain as one single family home site. B. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The situation in this case was not created by the landowner other than the fact that he did not wish to participate in the Wenzel Farms development when it was initiated. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Economics could come into play for both the applicant and the City - the applicant would benefit from the sale of an additional lot and the City would benefit from the additional assessments received from the sale. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. As discussed above, a blanket variance was granted in 1992 for the parcels immediately south of this site. E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. Property values should not be diminished by the construction of an additional homesite in this location