Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Marohn explained the Staff Report. In addition, he also stated that this subdivision <br /> does not meet the 33-foot right-of-way requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance. There <br /> was Commission discussion regarding a double wall or common wall between the two <br /> buildings. That was unknown. <br /> A motion was made by Mark Hallan, seconded by Scott Pederson,to approve the metes <br /> and bounds subdivision, based on the following findings of fact: <br /> 1. The property is properly zoned Downtown Mixed Use and is suitable in its natural <br /> state for commercial and residential uses as permitted in the DMU zone, as the <br /> property currently is being used for commercial purposes. <br /> 2. There are not any significant natural features, such as steep slopes or wetlands, <br /> that would constrain future development on these properties. <br /> 3. The three structures located on this property are conforming as they meet all <br /> required setbacks. Three feet of roof overhang is allowed to protrude into the <br /> setback. There is question about whether the overhang is allowed to hang over <br /> public right-of-way. <br /> 4. Each of the lots in the subdivision currently has access to municipal sewer <br /> services. <br /> 5. The applicant is not proposing any provisions for water-based recreation as these <br /> properties are not adjacent to any water bodies. <br /> 6. All lots meet the minimum lot size of 2,250 square feet in the DMU zone, with <br /> Tract A being 6,708 square feet and Tract B being 3,702 square feet. <br /> 7. All lots meet the minimum lot width of 25 feet, with Tract A being 47.17 feet and <br /> Tract B being 26.18 feet. <br /> 8. All the lots meet the impervious coverage limit for the DMU zone, with Tract A <br /> having 27% coverage and Tract B having 43% coverage <br /> 9. The proposed lot layouts are compatible with the existing layout of adjoining <br /> properties and the proposed lot lines are parallel and perpendicular to existing lot <br /> lines. Future development will not be constrained by these lot layouts. <br /> 10. The proposed side lot lines are at right angles to the existing road line and the <br /> property lines of adjacent properties. <br /> 11. Tract A meets the minimum frontage on public right-of-way requirement, having <br /> 47.17 feet. Tract B does not meet this requirement; however, the minimum lot <br /> width requirement is in conflict with the minimum frontage requirement. <br /> subject to the following condition: <br /> 1. This approval is contingent on there being 2 separate bearing walls. If there are <br /> not separate bearing walls, Mr. Schaefer will need to bring this application back <br /> to the Planning Commission. <br /> All members voted"aye". Motion carried. <br /> If this is a common wall, Staff was directed to research how other communities deal with <br /> this type of subdivision. <br /> Planning Commission 5 <br /> January 19, 2006 <br />