Laserfiche WebLink
4300 Watertown Road <br /> June 18, 1999 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 10. Johnson probably would have been allowed to build the house at its proposed location had <br /> he merely combined enough parcels to create a 5-acre lot that would allow setbacks to be met <br /> by the proposed house. For unknown reasons,he combined all 7 parcels. City files contain <br /> no documentation of any discussions related to the combination which may or may not have <br /> occurred between Johnson and City staff <br /> 11. The legal combination had the effect of eliminating any "grandfather" rights to buildability <br /> that the individual Mark One lots may have previously enjoyed. It is the City's position that <br /> the property currently consists of a single conforming tax parcel which, if it contains <br /> approximately 11 dry acres as indicated to the City, could likely be split to create a new 5- <br /> acre minimum lot, leaving the existing house on a 5-acre minimum lot. Orono Subdivision <br /> Code Section 11.03, Subd. 2.66(a) defines a Class I subdivision to include those <br /> subdivisions which are "a division of property previouslycombined for tax purposes". A <br /> Class I subdivision, while not requiring platting, does require City Council approval and <br /> is subject to the standards of Section 10.02, Subd. 10 (A) which provides standards for <br /> variances. Sspecifically, in Subd. 10(A)(6), these standards state that the City shall not <br /> approve variances unless it shall make findings that "the variances will not in any manner <br /> vary the minimum requirements for a lot as set forth in in the Zoning Chapter of the City <br /> Code as applied to the entire subdivision". Staff interprets this to mean,for instance, that <br /> the average lot width within a plat must meet the standard, even though some lots might <br /> be slightly narrower than the standard and some might be slightly wider. None of <br /> Johnson's individual lots would meet the 5 acre minimum area requirement, and most <br /> would not meet the 300'width standard. <br /> Judge Carey's conclusion that because other homes in the neighborhood exist on substandard <br /> lots, it is OK for Johnson's lots to be built on, ignores the fact that there are substantial additional <br /> zoning requirements that must be met before a building permit can be issued. His conclusion that <br /> six lots do exist for development under Section 31.203 and that there is no legal basis for denying <br /> a building permit, ignores all the other pertinent zoning regulations affecting buildability of a lot <br /> in the 5-acre zone, i.e. ignores the 3rd requirement under 31.203. Further, 31.203 no longer <br /> governs buildability of lots of record, as of 4-1-84. The ordinance in effect since 4-1-84 is 10.03, <br /> Subd. 6(A)(3) which reads: <br /> "3. In "R"Districts Not served By Public Sanitary Sewer.A lot of record in any "R"District <br /> in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements <br /> of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utilized for single family detached dwelling <br /> purposes without Council approval". <br /> Clearly, Council approval would be required for construction any and all of the six individual lots <br /> within the plat of Mark One, as each lot does not meet the 5-acre area standard. Such approval <br /> would require variances which would not be allowed per 10.02 Subd. 10(A)(6). <br />