Laserfiche WebLink
I, 1986 <br />I that there <br />id all have <br />oetten, to <br />.ance in the <br />removing 2 <br />hed garage <br />present for <br />onberg# was <br />ilalned the <br />t <br />e no houses <br />gr sites. He <br />buildable <br />t also noted <br />1 lot which <br />t was noted <br />he driveway <br />h proposed <br />»d driveway <br />.n order to <br />ed that the <br />the public <br />raylor, to <br />ivision and <br />0 staff*s <br />lained that <br />S months ago <br />reneral idea <br />:uations of <br />ownership. <br />1 <br />i <br />mi <br />L-’v' <br />- :/ <br />i <br />. i <br />■ : <br />j'-rj <br />m. : . <br />fUHUTBS OP THE PIAIWIBG CONIITSSI TIMG BEU> mmKKt 1», 1$8& <br />• <990 Wuto FKRRSU. continued <br />All the Planning Comniission members basically concurred <br />with their opinions stated at the November 18, 1985 <br />Planning Commission meeting, that this property should <br />be allowed a total of only 2 buildable lots. <br />Mr. Perrell stated that the City of Orono reguested him <br />to divide the property back in 1958 so there would not <br />be future problems with building another home, and that <br />this fact should be honored. He also noted that when the <br />zoning changed from a 1 acre to a 2 acre zoning <br />district, he was told that this would not affect <br />existing lots. <br />Assistant Zoning Administor Gaffron reviewed the history <br />of zoning changes in that area from 1950 to 1984. He <br />noted that the proposed lots meet the criteria required <br />of lots in single separate ownership based on the 1975 <br />zoning code, but a density issue and setting a precedent <br />are open, because these are substandard lots in common <br />ownership. <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Taylor, to <br />recommend denial of the 3 lots because they do not meet <br />applicable zoning code criteria. Motion, Ayes 2, Nays <br />3. Motion dies. Rovegno, McDonald, and Goetten voted <br />nay. Rovegno stated tha he felt this is a difficult <br />decision because it seeu.s that 3 lots would have met <br />code requirements up until a few years ago. McDonald <br />stated that because of the many years of ownership by <br />applicant, it would be inappropriate to deny. Goetten <br />concurred with McDonald in this matter and stated that 2 <br />lots would be acceptable. <br />It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to <br />recommend denial of 3 lots but could recommend approval <br />of a total of 2 properly laid out building sites and <br />recognizes the efforts, time and reliance the applicant <br />has put in his 1958 application but still recommend <br />denial of 3 lots. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />#999 BVAH MBLIHE <br />3598 NORTH SHORE DRIVE <br />VARIANCE -> SECOND REVIEW <br />Benn Belden, being half owner of the property, was <br />present for this matter. He noted that Evan Me line was <br />unable to be present because he is in Europe. <br />This application was tabled from the December 16, 1985 <br />Planning Commission meeting, so that the applicants <br />could firm-up plans to purchase additional property from <br />Hennepin County. <br />2 <br />-/ <br />2 <br />RD FERRELL <br />411, 3415 \ <br />VARIANCE