06-14-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File ^1811 May 19, 1993 Page 3 of 3 Subsequent Discussions Shortly after the Planning Commission meeting, Kevin Staunton received a letter from the Bielkes ’ attorney. Peter Bachman, indicating Ins discussions with a DNR attorney lead him to believe that DNR regulations prohibit the City from granting this variance. Further discussions lead to this item not being placed on the May 10 agenda pending additional information. Staff di.scussed this issue at length with DNR officials. While they initially indicated our "lots of record" ordinance may be inconsistent with DNR Sboreland Regulations, after further in-depth review they determined that our 80% rule is not inconsistent with the intent of the DNR regulations, that the intent of the regulations was not necessarily to deny buildability of a lot that meets their minimum lot area requirement (15,000 s.f. on a General Development Lake) while requiring only minor variance to the DNR minimum 75' requirement for sewered GD lakes. The DNR letter of May 17 sets forth the DNR position, and concludes with a reminder that if the City grants a variance. Council must find that a hard'' 'p e.xists. Council may recall that upon recommendation of the City Attorney, in 1984 the City revised its interpretation of the existing lots of record code section relating to one acre or smaller lots with sewer. Prior to 1984, staff interpreted the language (which has not changed since 1967) tr mean that the City would not even consider variance applications for existing vacant common ow nership lots less than 80% of the lot width and area requirement. On the advise of our attorney, since 1984 the City has accepted variance applications for such lots, and based on the merits of each individual case, has granted a number of such variances. At the same time, however, recall that the City tightened up its ordinance language with regards to commonly ow’ned unsewered lots. Because tliis application is controversial, at the risk of flooding you with paper, we have included documentation from the original 1983-84 variance review, which may help Council understand the basis for the original approval. Staff Recoinmendatioii Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. Council’s optional courses of action mav include; 1. Approval. 2. Table, requesting additional information. 3. Conceptual denial. 4. Other.