Laserfiche WebLink
»,• NO. 1811 OUNCIL ACTION 6/17/93erson, Bemdi & Zapptu. Lid..Rd. NE. Suite 301. Fridky.Leonard, Street &: Deinard.50 S. Fifth St., Mpls., MN 55402 <br />,1910 Shady wood Rd., <br />4 55391 <br />, Popham, Haik etc., 330o Piper <br />T. 222 Ninth St. S., Mpls., <br />?79 Drake St., Maple Plain, <br />slow <br />this item untU the June 28th meeting <br />■esent. <br />id by die Minnesota Departm.e <br />le June 14th meeting. <br />agenda. Tliat meeting stans at 7:30 <br />tvay. <br />minutes, they are available ifom the <br />I )i\ i\STATE OFrp^j [>.0 !1 S @ TriS.\department . cOF NATURAL RESOURCESphcne .-jo.METRO WATERS 772-7910 12CO WARNER ROAD; ST. PAWL, MN 55ia6rii= NO.June 14, 199Mb. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0065 <br />RE: APPLICATION .^1311, C. JACK RS.MEIN (3237 CASCO CIRCLE), LOT <br />WIDTH VARIA2TCE FOR LOT HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP, LAKE <br />MINNETONKA (27-133, #9), CIT^ OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTS <br />Dear Ms. Mabusth: <br />The purpose of this letter is to clarify points discussed in lay <br />correspondancs of May 17, 1993. In that letter I noted that the <br />city's ordinance requires contiguous substandard lots to be <br />combined if they are under the sane ownership. The lot in question <br />for variance application request #1311 has a substandard width and <br />is under the same ownership as the adjacent let. Therefore, the <br />city's ordinance requires that the j.ots be combined. I also noted <br />that in order for the city to grant a variance that hardship must <br />be demonstrated. <br />Bill Clano, cf the Attorney General’s Office, and I have had <br />follow-up * discussions regarding this natter and frit further <br />clarification was required regarding hardship. Based on the <br />information we have reviewed for this case, hardship does not <br />appear to have been demonstrated. <br />Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a variance <br />request. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be <br />based on the following prerequisites: <br />A. The proposed use is reasonable. <br />B. It v.vuld be unreasonable to require conformance with the <br />ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to <br />"f'.’^ctioral and aesthetic concerns" and ggon oT7l.i.Q <br />considerations alone do not constitute prac..ical difi-iculty. <br />C. The di'’iculty of conforming to the ordinance is due to <br />circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar <br />topograohy. If the problem is common to a number of homes in <br />the area, it is not considered unique. <br />D. The proalem must not be created by the landowner. <br />E. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential <br />character of the locality. <br />N ECUAL OPPORTUNITY EMP'-CYE.P