Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />? <br />L <br />‘ ^ rrm/ rM? noHMO. MINNESOTA <br />✓ v\ I •»o» f <br />' Oo o <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Planning Conunission and Council <br />Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator <br />September 18, 1980 <br />SUBJECT: #580 Robert White, 320 Woodhill Road - SUBDIVISION <br />WORK SESSION <br />Zoning District RR-IB <br />Area Approximately 6.5 acres <br />The applicant proposes subdividing a 6.5 acre parcel into two lots. <br />I have included the minutes for a previous subdivision and variance <br />application never completed by Mr, White <br />approved by Council on October 24, 1977.The variance request was <br />Mr. White once again requests. -■ X7//. nr. vvnite once again request <br />a variance for the proposed house, but I have not received a site plan <br />designating the extent of the variance. In t-h#i /->ne •:designating the extent of the variance. <br />the request was for a rear yard setback. ± injut; rn rnis appiicatio <br />he asks for a side yard setback. Review the architect's summary of <br />hardship in the minutes of October 24, 1977. <br />In the previous , pplication, <br />I note in this application. <br />Septic Testing - original test information is adequate. Lot line must <br />be moved for Lot ?'s drainfield. <br />■ <br />Lot Arrangement - Lot 1 is only 170' deep at building site. Existing <br />house on Lot 2 should be designated on preliminary plans. <br />Variance Application -Original variance was approved on October 24, 1977. <br />I am certain the current application deals with the <br />same rear setback variance and not side. Does <br />Planning Commission feel the hardships still apply? <br />Access - <br />In considering the topography along the Woodhill Road access, <br />I do not think this will be necessary.