06-09-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

15. The City Council -eviewed the application on March 10, 1.986, tabling it untP. April 14, 1986 for final action. On April 14, 1986, the City Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial based on the following findings: a) The extent of the variances requested is excessive for the RR-lB zoning district. b) Given the history of septic system problems in the City of Orono and surrounding Lake Minnetonka, a density of 3 septic systems on 2.9 acres in a district where 6 acres is required for 3 septic systems, is excessive. c) Because the property is currently used as conforming residential building site, the applicant would not be deprived of a reasonable use of the property. d) Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardships to justify granting of the requested variances. At the April 14, 1986 Council meeting the applicant noted his attorney could not be present at the meeting. The applicant was sked if he wished to have the matter tabled until his attorney �.as present. Applicant waived his right to have his attorney present. 16. The applicant maintains that he divided the property in 1958-59 at the request of then Mayor Herb Ross. Because the zoning code iopted in 1950 allowed only one residence per building lot, Mayor xoss would have been legally bound to require that a division be completed in order to allow the new house which was permitted in 1958. 17. The applicant maintains that the property was divided in a manner such that new homes could be built on each of Parcels 2 and 3 according to City codes at the time of division. In fact, Parcel 2 does not and never did contain the 1 acre in area required under previous zoning of the property. 18. The applicant has provided soil testing, proposed septic system designs, and proposed site plans for each of Parcels 2 and 3 which indicate that technically, septic systems can be provided to serve a residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3, meeting the required sanitary setbacks. However, technical feasibility is not the only criteria considered by the City in reviewing variance applications, and in this case and other similar cases, the City has also considered, as a matter of policy, the potential adverse effect of higher density housing on the quality of Lake Minnetonka and the potential adverse effect on the general health, safety, and welfare. Page 5 of 9