My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-16-1992 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1992
>
11-16-1992 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2023 11:10:52 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 10:58:20 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
266
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
t « <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Walter R. Benson <br />Alan P. Olson <br />July 10, 1981 <br />SUBJECT: David Duff, 1420 Shoreline Dr-’ve <br />The Duff property apparently contains about 2.9- acres of land, <br />enough for one residence in the rural area per RR-IB zoning. <br />The MUSA line as legally defined by Resolution No.‘1134 in <br />April 1980 excluded all the areas later approved for sewer in <br />1980 including Minnetonka Bluffs, X^est Ferndale and Orono Lane, <br />not just the marina area. This exclusion was based on the <br />existi'ng situation in April. It had no bearing on leaving the <br />Marina or Duff property in or out of the project. That decision <br />was based on the need for service and the potential for per <br />manent on-site systems on each property. <br />Mr. Duff is requesting 2 units. His existing house does have <br />problems but they could be resolved on-site on the two + acres. <br />With 2 units, the implication is service for a new lot to be <br />subdivided off. This could not occur under the existing <br />zoning because he has less than 4 acres. <br />It would seem reasonable that sanitary sewer might be a cost- <br />effective option to repair of the existing septic system. To <br />provide it for that purpose would be consistent with our CMP. <br />To provide it for new urban development in the rural area is <br />not. <br />To subdivide the 2.9 acres into 2 units would either require a <br />lot area variance or a rezoning to LR-IB or some similar 1 acre <br />designation. This has not been done for the other areas that <br />received sewer in 1980. <br />The Goetten property for comparison has 3.6 acres and was <br />served with 1 unit for the existing house. In that case Council <br />indicated they may look favorably on a future subdivision into <br />one 1 acre sewered parcel and one 2 + acre unsewered rural <br />parcel. This type of split is not possible on the Duff pro <br />perty because it is less than 3 acres. <br />Considering the zoning and the Duff lot area, if more than 1 <br />unit is to be considered at all I suggest that we also include <br />and study the adjacent Gregory property. This would include <br />all land to the Railroad Road tracks. Gregory also has a <br />lakeshore house with septic problems needing repair. <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.