09/07/93 Continuance - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS; CASE OF LYNN MORTENSON By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: Marshall Williams owns 100+ acres west of St. Francis Blvd. and north of 160th Lane N.W. He is proposing to sbudivide, by metes and bounds, a 25 acre parcel from 66.5 acres of those 100 acres. Lynn Mortenson is proposing to purchase the 25 acre parcel for the purpose of constructing a dwelling on the property. City Code requires a minimum lot width of 200 feet and lot width is defined as the amount of property that abuts the public road. This particular 25 acres only has 66 feet of frontage on a public road, Osmium St. N.W., which is currently unimproved. Mr. Mortenson's purchase agreement is contingent upon the City granting a variance to the minimum street frontage requirements for a dwelling on the subject property. At the Board of Adjustment meeting on August 19, the request for a variance was tabled and Staff was directed to research certain information. Below is a list of the questions posed by the Board of Adjustment and the results of the additional research. Question: Does the City have the authority to require satisfaction of park dedication requirements with metes and bounds subdivisions as well as plats? Answer: On metes and bounds subdivisions where the resulting parcels are less than 20 acres in size, the City does have the authority to require satisfaction of park dedication requirements because the split requires City approval. By State Statute, a land split wherein the resulting parcels are greater than 20 acres in size and 500 feet in width, does not require City Approval and consequently the City is not entitled to park dedication on subdivisions it has no authority over. Therefore, the City is not entitled to require park dedication in the Marshall Williams case. The following excerpts from State statute are enclosed for your review: 272.162(c), 462.352 subd. 12, 462.358(6). Question: If the City is entitled to park dedication on metes and bounds subdivisions, what would be the Park Commission's recommendation for park dedication requirements in the Marshall Williams case? Answer: The City is not entitled to park dedication in the Marshall Williams case but it if it were, the Parks and Utilities Coordinator has stated that the recommendation would be the acquisition of property for the continuance of the trail in a east west direction along the north side of the County ditch and trail right-of-way parallel to Hwy. g47. The estimated total of the desired trail right-of-way is approximately 9 acres. Question: Is a variance for street frontage (or lot width) required if the property has the minimum frontage on a public road at a location that will not provide the access to the property and less than the minimum frontage on a public road at a location that will serve as the access to the property. l