10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rator es requested by perty. his caser Mr. lid reapply for Subdivision 5. Ld be advisable on additional ition to a 1- 3, which some ked upon more ease action on •solution which at the revised commended for ,r February 18, ratoiium would :ation does not 1 lot request, to revise his the Planning corporated into , the applicant las additional :.is application parcel instead /aive any right y Council. The review of the Date: Subject : Mayor GrabekOrono Council MembersCity Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator May 29, 1987 #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Waterto%m Road - Variances - Denial Resolution List of BShibits Please refer to your information packet from the last meeting. Additional Exhibits: Exhibit A - Information/^urveys Submitted by Applicant at 5/26/87 Meeting 1) Swan Lake Plat - Mills New Subdivision 2) 900 North Brown Road 3) 1925 West Farm Road Denial Resolution as Drafted With Exhibit "A" (Sketch of Properties in Question) Exhibit B - Discussion Cases/situaticms that applicant feels axe sisd.lar* The applicant, at your May 26 meeting, suggested that there are many cases similar to his that the City has approved. In fact, because the prime differentiating factor is common ownership, none of the cases he brought up are similar: A) Swan Lake Addition - specifically William Mills* Jr. plat - this is a recent plat (1985-86) which divided Lot 7 into two lots each of which contains two dry buildable acres exclusive of the lake/pond area. This plat has absolutely no similarity to what Ferrell is requesting. Note that the City has granted variances for individual, pre-existing, separately owned substandard lots in the Swan Lake Addition. The key is separately owned. B) 900 North Brown Road - this lot was created as part of the plat "Farm at Long Lake" in 1978 under current zoning standards. The lot at 900 North Brown Road contains about 2.1 dry acres cotal, but of which only 0.9 acres is outside of an extensive drai easement on the property. This lot was in separate ovmership, wa^, created under currsnt loti drca codes end obviously was not considered as bein^ a substandard lot when created, as long as any house proposed to be built on it could meet the City's septic concerns (primary and alternate site) and setbacks, which it does. (NOTE that at that time in 1978, the City did not exclude drainage easement area from the dry buildable. Now we do.)