Laserfiche WebLink
* ^ ^ » <br />Craig Winters <br />Page 4 <br />VARIANCE <br />As a lot-line rearrangement, there is no variance necessary <br />to any zoning district standards. There is however a variance <br />requested from Section 39.400 of the platting code regarding <br />final plats. <br />The Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subdivision (4) and the Orono <br />platting code requires this application to be completed in the <br />form of a record plat because: <br />1) <br />2) <br />3) <br />There are more than 2 resulting lots <br />One parcel (1185) is divided into 4 pieces <br />Two new parcels are each less than 5 acres <br />in area (before combination) <br />There are 8 separate parcels created from <br />3 original parcels (before combination) <br />The combinations required mean that 11 <br />separate, original tax parcels must be <br />reorganized in all records into 4 final <br />parcels. <br />Most of the parcels are unplatted having <br />long metes and bounds legal descriptions. <br />None of the legal descriptions are "simple" <br />in language. <br />The applicants have prepared legal descriptions of the resulting <br />parcels but they have not prepared legal descriptions of the <br />actual parcel subdivisions necessary to arrive at the final re­ <br />sult. They have applied for a variance to allow metes and bounds <br />recording of the results for purposes of saving time and surveying <br />costs. <br />I have informed Mr. Winters and his attorney, and Mr. Gehrman as <br />long ago as 1978, that I believe formal platting is necessary <br />and desireable from our point of view and from theirs. I have <br />informed them that I understnad their reasons for desiring a <br />metes and bounds approval but that, from a planners point of <br />view, I must oppose granting of that variance. <br />I recommend that Planning Commission and Council expeditiously <br />approve this application, but that the approval be conditioned <br />upon submittal of record plat drawings for final approval. My <br />reasons for recommending platting are: <br />The permanent record is simplified and far less <br />subject to error or misinterpretation. <br />Field sta)cing of property corners eliminates on­ <br />site disagreements about actual ownership. <br />A boundary survey has already been done of the <br />entire property (for TMG in 1976 - by the same <br />surveyor Winters used for this application) so <br />field survey costs should be minimized. The draw­ <br />ing used for this application is basically the <br />same drawing used as the basis for a plat. <br />Staff time necessary for preparation of documents <br />is kept to the normal eunount. If metes and bounds <br />recording is approved in this case, the final sub­ <br />division resolution will be horrendous. <br />|| <br />I <br />•I <br />•i