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