Concept Review/Lot Division 7 Webster Place S Y
O
Co .c
0
10
ti `p
September 20, 1993 0 K Planning Report CR93 -1
CONCEPT REVIEW LOT DIVISION 7 WEBSTER PLACE
Proposed Action.
This is a concept review, which requires no action. Comments regarding the applicants
request will be helpful to the applicant in further action.
Overview.
The appl Mr. Hayes owns the property a 7 Webster Place. Mr. Hayes property is
located in an R-1-E zoning district, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
Mr. Hayes applied for a variance and a wavier of plat last March to divide his lot. Both the
requests were denied. The variance request was for a smaller lot than the required 40,000
square feet. Mr. Hayes now is seeking to divide his lot in a different manner that would not
require a variance.
Mr. Hayes existing lot is 89,851 square feet. He is proposing to divide his lot iri a manner that
would give Lot A 49,843 square feet and Lot B 40,008: square feet. Access to Lot A would
lio be by easement across Lot B.
Prior to proceeding further with a formal application Mr. Hayes desires input from the
Planning Commission on how it feels about the proposal. First, and foremost Mr. Hayes
desires feedback on the proposed lot configuration.- Secondly, Mr. Hayes wishes to discuss
what method should be used t o propose an actual subdivision of the property waiver of plat
procedure vs. replatting.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What are the specifics of this request?
o What previous action has occurred in the past for this property?
o Does the proposed division meet the requirements of the Ordinance?
o What is the proposed access to the site?
o When does the City allow a waiver of plat process vs. a platting process?
o What are the staff comments?
Suonortine Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Survey
1-
i Nan S. Anderson, AICP
Planner
CR 93 -1
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What previous action has occurred in the past for this property?
Originally 7 Webster Place was a large lot consisting of approximately 153,000 square feet.
Approximately 10 years ago a waiver of plat was granted to divide this property into two lots.
The lots were 89,851 and 63,000 square feet. On the 63,000 square foot lot a new home was
constructed. Access to this lot is from Loring Road. Mr. Hayes subsequently purchased the
house which is located on the larger lot. At the time the lot was divided previously, the
minimum lot size was 20,000 square feet.
o What are the specifics of this request?
Mr. Hayes is now proposing to divide the 89,851 square foot lot into two parcels. The
proposed parcels will be 49,843 and 40,008 square feet. The applicant is proposing to
construct a new home on the vacant lot. Access to the lot will be from an easement on the
north side of 7 Webster Place.
Any future division of the lot should have been undertaken at the time of the previous waiver
of plat. The division of the lot could have potentially provided for adequate access for any
future divisions.
o Does the ro osed division meet the requirements of the Ordinance?
P P
The proposed division does not appear to meet the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance. The following are the sections that the proposed subdivision may be in conflict
with:
Section 500.27 subd. 10. States the following: Private rights -of -way shall not be approved
nor shall public improvements be installed in any private street. The applicant is proposing a
private right -of -way as the only access point into the new lot. Access to the lot will a 15 foot
wide strip on the north side of 7 Webster Place. Access from Loring Road is not possible
because of the protected wetlands.
Section 500.55 subd. 2. States the following The lot dimensions in subdivisions designed
shall not be less than the minimum dimensions required to secure the minimum lot area
specified in the zoning code. The applicant does not have the minimum width requirement
for much of the lot. The R -1 -E district requires a minimum width of 100 feet, the strip that
connects to Loring Road in approximately 13 feet in width.
Staff desires Planning Commission feedback on staff interpretation of the code.
CR 93 -1
Page 3
o What is the proposed access to the site?
Access to the new lot is difficult. The area of the proposed lot which abuts Loring Road is a
wetland area. As a result of this situation access from Loring Road would require the
construction of a bridge. Because the wetland area cannot be filled, the only other realistic
approach is to provide a 15 foot easement on the north side of the lot with the existing home
for access.
The Zoning Ordinance requires all lots that have a home constructed on them to have a
minimum frontage of 20 feet on a public street. The purpose of this requirement is to insure
that lots have access to a public street. Even thought the proposed new lot does met the
requirement of having a minimum frontage of 20 feet on Loring Road it does not appear to
meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the lot cannot in a reasonable manner provide
access from this roadway.
Staff desires Planning Commission feedback on this issues.
o When does the City allow a waiver of plat process vs. a platting process?
The Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance does not address a waiver of plat
procedure to divide a lot. However, it has been the policy that if a lot division is a simple lot
split, usually a single line to divide the lot, an applicant can divide the lot with a waiver of plat.
The waiver of plat request would have to meet all the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. A waiver of plat is a much more inexpensive
procedure. A subdivision can cost several thousand dollars.
o What are the staff comments?
Staff is concerned with the following issues with the proposed division:
o Access. The proposed lot does not have access directly to a street. The intent
of the Zoning Ordinance requiring frontage on a street was to provide every
lot access.
o Irregular shaped lot. The proposed division creates an irregular shaped lot.
The some of the reasons for the for minimum lot size are to provide open
space and usable property. The reason for the proposed division is solely for
the purpose of meeting the minimum lot size requirements. The proposed
division creates a poor subdivision practice.
Alternatives.
1. Indicate that the division will be approved. By indicating that the proposed division
will be app roved the applicant will proceed with the division. If this is recommended
the staff would recommend that the applicant subdivide the property.
r.
1
CR93 -1
Page 4
2. Indicate that the division will not be approved. By indicating that the proposed
division will not by approved, the applicant will have to decide if he wishes to proceed.
3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further
information is needed the item should be continued.
4111
4110
(6) Location Ma tb) (1-`�)
22 W 20E-
(3 2 /B 16
RQ. 2i EAST ST.
W /9 E, I /7 /5 r
f i 2 (9) i
i 7 (10) 6 (8) (15) 1
5
4 (I 4;
3
(17) (7) 0 `V
_:T 14 (11)
8
(12) (13)
10 I (16)
/2 I 11
/WAN/ e 0 1 9 4 (112
`i 8
Is I
(14) (16) X 6
4 1
1� 8 7 (15) 1 RO4D
9
(20)
{4) 3 3 (3) \IA 9 (7) 10 (8) 6 5
(8)
6
3 z
g 5 1 I (9) (I0)
(2) (I) II 12 13 4
1 1 //00
i%
//18 J
/c
COUNTY ROAD
/G..-72,9 /0 06
1115 11VIINNE'TO q B
5 V
(15) (10)
1 N \G34)
(14) (13) 1 (35)
4 3
(11) (12)
5A t 2 2
(16) 6
(16)
PROPERTY T R PLI
3 X 34)
0
2 x (31) :14,•:
(22) I (21) (33
14 13 12
(331
4 I 0
(26) I 8
i (29) 8 1
i i a+ (30) {19) (20 (32) (31 J
I
9 10 11
5
(23) 's
.27)
4
/4 /Z /O 8
ROAD t
IF
V L
SS 7 O, 10 40
of r
W
9�
r V ,rs.6
i tt :z/ S N1f1oS
1 'fir 4 v ¢wry auoyda)1 iAaMOd Pvay�yrp -1---. z sb tt •t or
11 ot,
3
k
/�ti Vir
w h "''S\
w° V h
ZS6 P i s.
I q
7 .44 frae E.s•.•
w
v
V
r a.. IIt<6 3_____________A pi
esit---•.,..• a 4£6
o z op. ..,0 szs
0 g7 I
@l6
ii
P a fri
W V j 2
J
r
J p O 1
r
J
W
1
,I .'b.K I. o A
11 ,........L_4kisl, z /4 i_ jz z
1. 7
11 't j
t A k �r
0�
-Tp,,, to o
0 .a "S'
o SaN 8
X0/
4
r
1