Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING REPORT <br />DATE: <br />CASE NUMBER: <br />APPLICANT: <br />LOCATION: <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />West Side of St. Croix Street, <br />North of County Road B (see <br />sketch) <br />Division of Platted Lot <br />1. This property is a portion of Lot 4 of Block 3 of Todd's Out Lots. <br />The property has 161 feet of frontage on the west side of St. Croix <br />Street and a depth of 237 feet. The property is occupied by an <br />existing home built on the south portion of the property. Attached is a <br />copy of the section map on which we have indicated the property in <br />question. Lot 4, as originally platted, is indicated in a light gray <br />pattern. <br />2. Attached is a copy <br />of a survey <br />prepared <br />by Advance Surveying and <br />Engineering Co. which <br />indicates the <br />proposal <br />to divide the land into two <br />lots. The south 81 <br />feet would be <br />occupied <br />by the existing home and <br />the north 80 fact is <br />proposed as a <br />lot to be <br />sold. Also attached is a <br />copy of a statement <br />from Lorraine <br />St. Louis <br />noting her requspst. <br />3. The n+ortnal minimum lot frontage for an interior lot (as is the case <br />here) is 85 feet. They mininiurn lot area is 11,000 square feet. The <br />lot width proposed is $1r fact in ,►idth one has a lot area of 18,958 <br />square feet. <br />4. You <br />will <br />mote that the c,-, ction reap attached to this report indicates <br />the <br />property <br />In goestion, an well as the lot pattern in the <br />general area. <br />The <br />lots <br />across the street, replattod in the lost decade, <br />vary from <br />75 <br />feet <br />aDnd <br />79 feet in width to 86 feet in width. There <br />is as 104 <br />foot <br />lot <br />aacross from the existerig hotne site. There are two <br />additional <br />lots <br />to <br />thv <br />nurth of thv property tri question, cacti with <br />161, fe;ct <br />of <br />f rontaage}. <br />5. flius, it wl)ulel se►ajm ths`at Ilie proposed lots are reasonably in scale with <br />€at least some of thca Iota eri the inimediaate< Farca. It would seem, then, <br />treat the propot _al incrits careful consideration. <br />6. Duey to the fortumste <br />locative of <br />the <br />existing house and garage:, the <br />existieee3 structure; (eery <br />the 81 foot <br />lot) ri ccLs setback requirements and it <br />would zalalau ar that the <br />proposvd 80 <br />foot <br />lot Could do so as well. <br />7. Tlivre appear to be tit) enginverin!l eon!Araints to the division of the <br />land for an additional developable single-family lot. <br />