#4660-variances-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�i--�� ��!;�° �� V'\`� /�� � �.e - 1�� C ITY of OR4N� �a �,l'i �� G'�i/ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL \�`_�`9 4�t'%/� N 0. �.� � � �` �SH� value of the land and the inte�rit�-. stability and beauty of the communit}�." 1�. The Council finds that the grantinQ of lot area and lot width variances for Lot 7 would be inappropriate becatise allow-in�construction of a residence on the lot��,�ould not be in keepinQ t�ith the spirit and intent of the ZoninQ Chapter and the LR-1 B District, and would not meet the necessary Statutory findin�s of"undue hardship" required to arant such a variance, as follows: a) "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used by under conditions allo�ved by the official controls." The property in quzstion can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allo�ved by the official controls. Continued use as lake access for 1169 North Arm Drive and for docl: use, as has occur.-ed for the past 30 years OI IOIIaZI", is a reasonable use of this very substandard lot. The City will approve the necessary Special Lot Combination to allow said past use to continue. This oti�ner and past owners have enjoyed a substantial bene�t of Lot 7 for many years by usin� it for lake access purposes. b) "ThP nlight ef the!anL�ti�ner is due#a�i��,::r.stan�e��:^iqL�.�#hi,pro�e:t-�nat created by the lando�vner." The pli�ht of the landotivner is that the lot historicallv used as lake access for 1169 North Arm Drive is e�tremely substandard in area and �vidth as compared to the standards of the LR-1B zoning district. This condition is not unique to this propert}',as man��such lots were platted many decades aQo before zoninQ standards tiuere in effect.In r?iany cases a1_ong the shoreline of Forest Lake Bay of Lake Minnetonlca, tu,�o o;more substandar� lots have beer. combined in order to more closel�� meet the LR-1B standards. In this case, the landowner had ample opportunity to ��ie�v the historv of variance denials for the propert_y �rior to purchasintr Lot 7 and 1169 North Arm Drive toQether. The property owner should have had every expectation that such denials would be upheld considerin` that the zoning district lot area and �ti�idth standards have not changed since those denials. c) "T'he ��aa-iances, i�' granted, ��il➢ not aYter the essential character o�' t3�e neighborhooc�." GrantinQ of the ��ariances�vould alter the essential character of the neiahborhood. Constrtiction of a residence on such a substandard lot �vould create additional develcpr.7ent densitv not in character�vith the e:�isti,��neiQhborhood. i he Page � of 7