My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 9/12/1988
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 9/12/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2025 10:14:49 AM
Creation date
9/16/2025 1:34:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet CC
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
9/12/1988
Retention Effective Date
9/16/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
493
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Zoning File #990 <br />November 13, 1985 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />Per Subdivision 6, a "Lot of Record" is any lot for which a deed <br />or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the <br />Registrar of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, <br />Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Councii <br />if required. <br />The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-lB zoning <br />district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system <br />are contained within the two easterly parcels totaling 1.01 acres. The two <br />westerly parcels are 1.04 and 0.85 acres respectively. The applicant <br />wishes to obtain building permits for each of the westerly parcels. <br />The 1950 Zoning Code (adopted 7/10/50) established a number of zoning <br />districts, including the "Stubbs Bay District" in which Ferrell's property <br />was located. The "Stubbs Bay District" required minimum building lot size <br />of one acre. This one -acre minimum was still in effect in 1958 when <br />Ferrell requested to build a second residence on his property. It is very <br />likely that Ferrell was told by the City at that time that in order to <br />build another residence he would have to subdivide, because in general the <br />Code allowed only one principal residence per building lot (see Council <br />minutes 9/22/58). Note that 3t that time his request was referred to the <br />Planning Commission - minutes have not been found for the Planning <br />Commission meeting or any subsequent action. Although a platting code <br />existed in Orono as of 1955, Ferrell apparently divided off 2 lots each of <br />140' width and approximately 1 acre in area, in or about 1959 without <br />platting, and the parcels have apparently been separate for tax purposes <br />since that time. The parcels including the road right-of-way would likely <br />have been considered conforming or nearly conforming lots of record under <br />them 1967 Zoning Code which designated the property as Zone R-lC, 1 acre <br />and 140' width, Single Family Residential. That. 1967 Code stated, re- <br />garding lots of record, as follows: <br />31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14, <br />1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate <br />ownership in a "R" Residential District, which does not meet the <br />requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized <br />for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the <br />judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public <br />health or safety. Single separate ownership includes joint ownership <br />by not more than two persons. <br />The 1967 Code did not 3iscuss common ownership properties nor did it <br />differentiate between sewe-ed and unsewered lots of record. However, by <br />using the term "Single Separate Ownership", it implied that otter types of <br />)wnership would be treated differently but did not define in what way. <br />Under this code, the applicant would likely have been allowed to build on <br />the 1,04 acre lot without a variance b2c--ause the lot met the standards of <br />the 1-acre zoning district. The 0.85 acre lot would likely have required <br />Council approval, depending on whether the area in the road right-of-way <br />was included in the lot area at that t-me. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.