12-07-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 7, 1982 - 11. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR APPEAL - CONTINUED: Fraser - would adopt the other point of view - regardless of the timing of the purchases there is presently a single owner and the property as it exists now enhances the existing home and not much different from anyone else who might want to cut off a piece of property for sale. --Eder - the economic reality of this, the burden we will place, may not be commensurate with this position. Have seen a $50,000 house placed on a $40,000 lot - may not be the balance of equities between the land and the structure. Because this person is locked into this situation he will be assessed for taxes he cannot recover. --Fraser - would all be at an economic advantage if could subdivide our properties as we chose and as opportunity arose. The present regulations prohibit this within certain constraints and sees this request as coming within those constraints. --Novak - sees this argument for this subdivision can be used for any property in the City. Would set a precedent that couldn't be handled - this is the reason for the Ordinance. --Ron Orchard -,this argument could be made in many other cases - this is an ominous consequence of the adopted Ordinance. In this case, do not feel this is precedence setting when considering the average lot size in the area is .67acres and-this-with-the-addit-ional property is 89- acres _ substantially larger - over 1/3 larger than the average size lot in the area. Again, feels there is a question, the way the Ordinance is drafted, that the 60% Rule applies to _ one acre; --Eder � confirmed the Attorney''s interpretation that because the property is contigious it is regulated under Section 301.090B. --Ray Marshall;,- yes, also under the last sentence in 301.090 A. if the parcel was one acre; the individual would be entitled to a variance. The question presented is does this last sentence apply or not to a parcel that is .86 acres as well as to an acre. If it is determined the equities are in the individuals favor have the authority to grant a variance; but, there is a conflict on this particular parcel with the language in B with this part of A. --Fraser - question is is .86 acres close enough - do not see it as close enough to meet the Ordinance. --Ray Marshall - this is a judgement call which is determined by the decision to grant or not grant the variance. --Morgan - seem inconsistent - last week granted an individual the right to build a house on .4 acre with areas that were not suitable for drainfield - now have request for .86 acre lot above the high water and we want to deny. Looksat this as a seperate parcel - no problem with this based on action approved in the past in this area. Motion failed 2-2. Fraser and Novak opposed 13. HAMMES: A. Moving Building - Dorothy Lyons up -dated the Council on the status of -the house to be moved onto the platted lot. - the footings are in and the foundation is up, waiting for the mover to move it to the site once the ground is frozen. Small House - plan to use this as a construction office for the gravel business.