Laserfiche WebLink
ed the request of <br />idivided property, <br />of the Planning <br />milding permit to <br />i residence is now <br />id the property so <br />eparate 1.29 acre <br />located on a 1.01 <br />and 2 additional <br />1 between 3405 and <br />1, 2 and 3 since <br />n. <br />staff to accept a <br />home on Parcel 3. <br />application as a <br />lely review and <br />It submitting the <br />id. <br />U <br />n, the Planning <br />(lication No. 903r <br />firmed that many <br />of Parcels 2 or 3 <br />general direction <br />approval of one <br />(uncil on May 2B$ <br />ion of the zoning <br />to build on both <br />1 Council members <br />Lding site but not <br />ormal application <br />I 3. The Planning <br />November 18 r 1985, <br />dditional required <br />ng house on Parcel <br />again reviewed the <br />sion unanimously <br />imended approval of <br />a 3. <br />m:-■msrnm <br />■... y: ^ - ^ <br />•.: TP <br />15. The City council reviewed the application on March 10, 1986, <br />tabling it until April 14, 1986 for final action. On April 14, ^86, <br />the City Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial based <br />on the following findings: <br />a) The extent of the variances requested is excessive for the <br />RR-IB zoning district. <br />b) Given the history of septic systea <br />Orono and surrounding Lake Minnetonka, a density of 3 septic <br />systems on 2.9 acres in a district where 6 acres is required for <br />* 3 septic systems, is excessive. <br />c) Because the property is currently used as conforming <br />residential building site, the applicant would not be deprived of <br />a reasonable use of the property. <br />d) Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardships to <br />justify granting of the requested variances. <br />At the April 14, 1988 Council meeting the applicant noted <br />could not be present at the meeting. The applicant was . <br />wished to have the matter tabled until his attorney was present. <br />Applicant waived his right to have his attorney present. <br />16. The applicant maintains that he divided the property <br />at the request of then Mayor Herb Ross. 8®=®“®* i^'lno*lot^Mavor <br />adoDted in 1950 allowed only one residence per f <br />Rosf would have been legally bound to req«i'® ’"'L“tJ*ltted\n 1958 completed in order to allow the new house which was permitted in 1958. <br />17. The applicant maintains that the property was divided in a manner <br />such that new homes could be built on each \ <br />Soe^not and never did contain the 1 acre in area required under <br />previous zoning of the property. <br />18. The applicant has provided soil testing, proposed s®Ptic system <br />dLigns, and proposed site plans for each of ®7Lrvt a <br />indicate that technically, septic systems can l^® to serve a <br />residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3, meeting the required sanitary <br />setbacks. However, technical feasibility is not the on T ®^,“ <br />considered by the City in reviewing variance applications, and in this <br />case and otLr similar cases, the City ‘'®!®^so considered, as a <br />«,s»4-4-sar- of no 1 icv the Dotentlal adverse effect of higher density <br />homing on'the quality of Lake Minnetonka and the potential adverse <br />effect on the general health, safety, and welfare. <br />Page 5 of 9 <br />'S .'irrf