Laserfiche WebLink
;:v : :y-■■' ifiifn'- • <br />I**. <br />ed the request of <br />^divided property, <br />of the Planning <br />juilding permit to <br />1 residence is now <br />d the property so <br />iparate 1.29 acre <br />Located on a 1.01 <br />ind 2 additional <br />between 3405 and <br />t 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 />n, the Planning <br />>lication No. 903r <br />firmed that many <br />of Parcels 2 or 3 <br />general direction <br />J approval of one <br />1. <br />>uncil on May 28r <br />ion of the zoning <br />to build on both <br />1 Council members <br />Iding site but not <br />ormal application <br />{ 3. The Planning <br />November 18, 1985, <br />dditional required <br />ng house on Parcel <br />again reviewed the <br />sion unanimously <br />unended approval of <br />d 3. <br />.'“V,m <br />lipr <br />w <br />iii; <br />■." ■:v=zaaci <br />mm' <br />n <br />the City Council dLected 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 system problems in ^he <br />Orono and surrounding Lake Minnetonka, a density of ^ s«P “= <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, 1986 Council meeting the applicant noted <br />could not be present at the meeting. The applicant was asked if h^e <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 <br />at the request of then Mayor Herb Ross. * iQt ^Mavor <br />adopted in 1950 allowed only one residence per f <br />ROSS would have been legally bound to require ® <br />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 <br />iuch that new homes could be built on f] <br />according to City codes at the time of division. In fact. Parcel 2 <br />does 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 septic system <br />desierns, and proposed site plans for each of Parcels 2 an <br />indicate that technically, septic systems can ® <br />residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3, meeting the required sanitary <br />setbacks. However, technical feasibility is not the <br />considered by the City in reviewing variance <br />case and other similar cases, the City has also <br />matter of policy, the potential adverse effect of higher density <br />housing on^the quality of Lake Minnetonka and the potential adverse <br />effect on the general health, safety, and welfare. <br />Page 5 of 9