Laserfiche WebLink
M: <br />|r- <br />i <br />.j*v ^ <br />-:. i* <br />ph-, - <br />. <br />ii <br />w <br />IP <br />mi <br />fe'V <br />■ <br />?'^«‘ <br />V*S-•V'. <br />i.-> <br />■f^ff.:ar:— <br />ZoniQg File #18r <br />May 19, 1993 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />Subsequent Dlacti <br />Siortly after the Plaoning Commission meeting, Kevin Staunton received a letter from <br />the Bielkes* attorney, Ptter Bachman, indicating his discussions with a DNRa^niey lead him <br />to believe that DNR r^wlations prohibit die City from granting this variance. Further <br />lead to this item not being placed on the May 10 agenda pending addir* <br />infoniimion. Staff discussed this jss'ie at length with DNR officials. While t^ ini <br />our *hMs of lecofd” ordinance may be inconsistent with DNR Shoreland Rcgulai <br />after ftifther inHiepth review they determined that our 80% role is not inconsistent with the imem <br />of the DNR leguladou. that the intent of the regttlatioiis was not necessarily to deny buildability <br />of a lot that meets their minimum lot area requirement (15,m s.f. on a General Development <br />Lake) while requiring only minor variance to die DNR minimum 75* requirement for sewered <br />OD lakes. The DNR letter of May 17 sett forth the DNR position, and concludes with a <br />ywttwUr rtttt if the City grants a variance. Council must find diat a hardsh^ exists. <br />Council may recall that upon recommendatt <br />revised itt interpretttion of the easing lots of record <br />lots with sewer. Prior to 1984, staff interpreted d <br />1967) to mean that the City would not even considc <br />lyrnmnn ownership lots less than 80% of the lot wU <br />our attorney, since 1984 die City has accqited varii <br />the merits of each individual case, has granted a m <br />however, recall that the City tightened up its ordina <br />owned umewered lots. <br />hi1i> <br />1 of the City Attorney, in 1984 the City <br />jde section relating to one acre or imaIkT <br />language (which has not changed since <br />variance applications for existing vacant <br />1 and area requirement. On the advise of <br />appUcations for such lots, and based on <br />r of such variances. At the same time, <br />e language with r^ards to commooty <br />indue <br />muI r a •» h <br />•e this wfication is controversial, at die risk of flooding you with paper, we have <br />the original 1983-84 variance review, which may help Council <br />1 the basis fbr the original approval. <br />^ IM -11 »t '» <br />, to » 'I M -a <br />Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. Council’s optional courses of <br />may include: <br />1. Amnoval. <br />2. Table, requesting additional informats <br />3. Conceptual denial. <br />4. Other. <br />. ft ... - ^ I I lAi in -r ■■