Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/27/1988

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1025 Page 4 The most similar situation staff can find in the T -1B district occurs at 4175 Highwood Road, where the homestead lot contains a principal residence, and the secondary separate tax parcel contains an older building, yet a full sewer unit was paid for each lot. Significantly, if based on the fact that a full sewer unit has been assessed to the adjacent vacant lot, (not just a fractional sewer unit), then it appears that the only LR-lB lot in a distinctly similar situation to Henricha is at 4175 Hi.4hwood Road, hence the setting of a precedent in the LR-lB zone might be construed to ne minimal. The significant precedent setting would however, come into play if lots which were granted a fractional sewer unit as part of a group, were allowed to be split. An illustrative case is as follows: The property at 4340 North Shore Drive contains three separate tax parcels owned in common, each of which is about a third of an acre, each of which is now vacant, and each of which wAs assessed one third of a sewer unit for a total of one unit for the entire one acre property. A building once existed on one of the three lots but was removed in 1.975. It would be inappropriate to base a splitting of those three lots on the fact that they were assessed for sewer, because each one was assessed only one-third of a unit. In HF•nrich's case a fill sewer unit was assessed and paid for, costing Henrich approximately $3,000 to $4,000 In special assessments for that property over the time period 1971-1985. 2. Since 1980, the City has only approved two existing lots smaller than Henrich's for building sites, both occurring in the LR-iC, half -acre district. In both cases, sewer had been assessed on the property. Only one of those cases was a lakeshore lot, that one being 1932 Fagerness Point Road, where an existing residence was razed and A new house constructed in its place, only 28' from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, but with no more hardcover than had been pre-existing, and setback no closer to the lake than had been pre-existing. That lot was 6,327 s.f. or 0.15 acre, requiring a lot area variance of 61%. Henrich is requesting a lot area variance: of 80.6%. Discussion This is a complex variance request, from the standpoint that what may to perceived as being fair to Mr. Henrich does nc.t fit within the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the LP-lB Zoning District. Mr. Henrich has paid a full sewer unit for a piece of property that is so substandard in area that it is highly unlikely that the hardcover limitations of the City can be satisfied if that lot is developed. Furthermore, out of more than 650 developed lots in the LP-1B districts in the City, only 19 of 657 developed lots or under 3% are sirrilar in size or smaller than this proposed huilding site. The majority of those existing developed lots were developed prior to adoption of zoninq codes in the r•<ty, Atj.roval of the Henrich request on the basis that a sewer unit has been assessed tc the 1.t(jerty and chat there was a Ire -existing structure on the property, would be consistent with contemEorary City practice only if