Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 7/11/1988

Home Browse Search

L'A[111J11 H 1 �s Page 3 of OF LAKE MINNETONKA. There is no evidence to support this assertion. An analysis of the lot size data provide. i the City, and referred to above indicates that applicants p,.. sal is totally consistent with the neighborhood. Indeed, a review of all the properties in the City on North Arm Bay indicates that this is an area which has been used for high density single family residences for close to half a century. In addition, there are no other potential building sites on f:ighwood Road which have sever connections and have paid sewer assessments, and which are not presently developed. The history of this neighborhood is that the City has allowed substantial renovation and rebuilding on lots which are essentially the same as applicant's, and have routinely granted variances to accommodate such construction. As indicated above, any effect on the quality of Lake Minnetonka as a result of applicant's proposal would be positive. The relandscaping of applicants properties would remove hardcover i•n the 0 to 75 foot zone where run off effects lake quality most substantially. 4. THE STAFF ASSSERTS THAT THE PARCEL PRESENTLY HAS SOME USE AS A SIDE YARD TO AN EXISTING DWEL�'.ING. This position ignores the very fundamental realty that historically the lot in question has been used as a separate building lot, and indeed the City has classified it as such in imposing a full sewer assessment to the property. The City 'aas always treated the parcel as a separate tax parcel, and at no time suggested to Mr. Henrich that the removal of the residence previously located on the parcel would change the character of the lot in question as a separate building parcel. Having benefitted from its treatment of the parcel in question as a separate building site, the City should not now attempt to assert that Mr. Henrich has an adequate use for the property as a ncn- building site. 5. THE CITY'S REFUSAL TO GRACT THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE hN ARIBTRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACT. An analysis of the past history of variance requests in the City of Orono indicates that minimum lot size and lot width variances are routinely granted. Indeed in the LR-lB District only 2 such requests have been denied. The City has arbitrarily assigned in excess of two-thirds of the lots in the LR-1B Districts to that category in spite of the fact that only 111 of j 390 such lots are equal to or greater than one acre in size. ' When faced with variance requests Or, those lots which are of ' substandard size, the City �,as consistently and overwhelmingly �j approved the requests and has consistenly held that the existence of a sewer hookup and payment of a full sewer assessment is determinative of buildability. Indeed, information provided ty the City staff and statements made by Assistant Zoning Director, f� .t J-