05-16-1983 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

wm 5 ion published owners gview the grs coin- plat as December t 3 Lot 8 remains 2 potential and the he same be 1977 would to sewer, because 1 Smith part of mith to t included abut the ncluded in St of Casco obvious #739 & #740 Edward T. Lehman May 12, 1983 Page -2- I have asked the City Engineer to review the plat relative to sanitary sewer service. He recommends that all parties use the same trench to minimize excavation in the area. This would be fine if the Edwards' were part of this plat but they have not shown any interest in con tacting my office as of this writing. Lehman has continued to update them on the status of the subdivision review. I will write a letter for the record advising them that the City will require that they connect to municipal sewer sometime within the next year. Lehman as a result of this subdivision will be required to hook up prior to the sale of his current residence as a condition of plat approval. The individual grinder pumps are the best method for serving all involved properties. They run about $2500.00 each. Cook recommends that the City plat a utility easement of 20' along the south side of the exist ing driveway serving the Edwards house. Lehman may use that connection route or choose one more economical. Riparian Issue The proposed narrow platted corridors to the lagoon obviously require shoreline width variances. But the factual reality is that Lehman owns 360' feet of shoreline on the lagoon, plus another 120 feet on the main lake. Thus, he has 480 total feet of shoreline for four lots. This averages out to be 120 feet per lot, which is more than the 100 feet required by the City or Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Thus, from staffs' objective position, there is no factual reason to recommend approval or denial of the application. The question of whether or not to approve this averaging is a question of policy for the Planning Commission and Council, not staff, to answer. There is precedent for both. What is the ordinance intent? Is it to regulate overall density on the lake? If so, the averaging would conform to the intent and the variance would be appropriate to address Lehman's unique lagoon situation. Or is it to rigidly specify 100 feet for each and every dock to space them out for maneuverability or appearance or whatever? If so, then the averaging would not conform and the lot width variance should be denied. The Lehman plat of 1977 left many issues unresolved for the subject property, sewer service to existing house, creation of lots with unbuildable building envelopes, potential illegal use of the lagoon by owners of lots not abutting the lagoon - it exists now and will continue to be used through devices that appear conforming to enforcing agencies. Staff would suggest that the intent of Orono's lakeshore preservation goals might better be served by the sewering of these houses than by denying two or three more docks. In every application we deal with there is the element of tradeoff. - ' #739 & #74 May 12, I9 The survey! lots 2 and than it sh( 40' platte< 1 will be : on the tot* Setback Vai Review lasl for this aj since 1977 Commission 2725 sf. Lot 3's har applicant w variance fo variance se McCleary di specified/a; when dealin' Staff recomi To approve setback va 4 and if n following 1. deptf 2. no ch apprc This approva Staff recomm To recommend application < units in the of fact: 1. There i time oJ