12-07-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1982 4.7- 11. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR APPEAL - CONTINUED: --Whittaker - reviewed the variances needed; --Bohrer ati�brep4r-ed %a- site --plan review; but, "Cannot address' - this until,the Council addresses the variancesfrom the -sub- divisionregulationsandthe Shoreland Ordinance, --Whittaker - the Sinclair lot does not qualify under -the 60% Rule; but, based on the 100% average requirement,it exceeds the -average lot _size in Lanes Demontreville. --Ron Orchard - Section A of 301.090 refers 'bo`: lots that meet 60% of the area requirement set forth in the section- this goes on to state the 1A exception. Believes, this can be interpreted to mean 600 of 1 acre. --Ray Marshall - Comments:_on Secti0n-.WB - Contigious Parcels: many.comments--.made about the -ownership of this parcel - it is true that were this parcel (Sinclair Lot) in separate ownership an.araument for variance could be more easily sus- tained. In that instance would literally have a parcel which cannot be added to. Can understand Mr. Orchard's position that if it is fair to allow this under a seperate ownership it is unfair - to have the result different for him. The contrary argument is the whole purpose of. Section B - contigious parcels with common ownership cannot be considered seperate parcels for purposes of the ordinance. Further, any time additional land, especially land such as this that is owned along the shoreland of a lake, even though not developed into other building sites, adds to the value of the main parcel regardless of its use, if it increases its size. Have to consider the equities. Section 301.090 A - statearthat'_anyZ.ione acre lot - does not say .86 acre, says 1 acre lot —this is the-driticaL:faotor. Don't think this is the same situation as with Johnston or Larson because those parcels were clearly owned seperately, adjacent property was not owned. -- --Morgan r asked Mr. Orchard -to confirm that 2,000 sq. ft. could be added without a great deal of undesirable reflection on the homestead lot. --Ron Orchard - thinks the 2,000 sq. ft. is an undesirable reflection on the adjacent lot - indicated the problems this would create on the survey. --Morgan - the additional 2,000 sq. ft. would eliminate the need for a lot width variance at the street. M/S/ Morgan/Eder to approve a Simple Lot Subdivision for Elizabeth Orchard, provided 2,000 sq. ft. is added to the Sinclair parcel, thereby increasing this lot to 8.8A, and eliminating the variance for the lot width at the street. Discussion: --Ron Orchard - wants to develop the property - willing to increase the lot size if this is what is required. --Fraser - does not think this stipulation is the way to go at this point„ - not a good solution. --Morgan - + if he did:not�.own the adjacent property, then, this situation would be the same as with Larson and Johnston. This property is more desirable than either of those pieces particularly with the land above the high water mark and in total size.