Laserfiche WebLink
• 22. Lorge sold Lot 4, but not Lot 3, to Jerome Reinan on <br /> May 29, 1980, thereby separating the parcels for the first time <br /> since 1920 and thereby making both Lot 3 and Lot 4 substandard and <br /> deficient in regards to zoning requirements as enumerated above. <br /> 23. Lorge applied on August 29, 1980 for a lot width <br /> variance for Lot 3, but not for any other variances, stating as <br /> a hardship that there was "no adjacent land available" . � <br /> 24. Prior to the Lorge sale of Lot 4 on May 29, 1980, <br /> there was adjacent land available to Lot 3 in the form of Lot 4 <br /> which historically had been owned in common with Lot 3. <br /> 25. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute <br /> a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Lot 3 has <br /> always had value and been used as required area and yard space for <br /> the residence on Lot 4. <br /> 26. Any hardship resulting from the separate ownership of <br /> Lot 3 has been caused by the applicant's sale of adjacent Lot 4 <br /> eight years after common ownership by the applicant of both lots and <br /> thirteen years after the adoption of the applicable minimum zoning <br /> requirements. <br /> 27. The development of Lot 3 for residential purposes as <br /> • proposed by Lorge would add to the existing drainage problems for <br /> the properties in the area, including Lot 4, previously owned by <br /> Lorge. <br /> 28. The granting of the variances would be adverse to the <br /> state promulgated low density shorelands development policy, Minn. <br /> Stat. �105. 485, Subd. 1, which calls for a minimum lot width of 75 <br /> feet on a General Development or Recreational Development Lake such <br /> as Lake Minnetonka. <br /> 29. Section 31. 202 of the Zoning Code provides for <br /> development of lots of record held in separate ownership since <br /> prior to the effective date of the zoning regulation, provided the <br /> lot of record meets 80� of the required lot width. Lot 3 does not <br /> conform to this Section because it is only 60� of the required lot <br /> width and because it was in common ownership with Lot 4 between <br /> 1967 and 1980. <br /> 30. The City Council has always required that when two or <br /> more lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or <br /> exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots <br /> can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in <br /> common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets <br /> the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built <br /> upon. <br /> • Page 4 of 6 • <br />