Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />r- % <br />R t!c^vi. rr .O <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />Planning Commission and Council <br />Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator <br />V-i;V' <br />DATE:September 15r 1980 <br />SUBJECT: #581 Richard T. Lorge, 2697 Casco Point Road - VARIANCE <br />LIST? OF EXHIBI*. <br />Exhibit 1 <br />Exhibit 2 <br />Exhibit 3 <br />Exhibit 4 <br />Exhibit 5 <br />Exhibit 6 <br />Exhibit 7 <br />Exhibit 8 <br />Exhibit 9 <br />Exhibit 10 <br />Exhibit 11 <br />Application <br />Property Owners List <br />Survey Lot 3 fc 4 <br />DaMarfs Site Plan - Building elevation <br />Fact Sheet <br />Affidavits <br />Tax Statements <br />Contract for Deed - Lot 4 <br />Letters from neighbors <br />Minn. Supreme Court Decisions <br />Ogland File <br />Mr. Lorge seeks a variance for lot width and common ownership of two <br />substandard lots. He owned two lots of approximately 19,641 s.f.(Lot 3) <br />and 20,202 s.f.(Lot 4). He sold his home on Lot 4 (see Exhibit 3) assuming <br />that Lot 3 '-ould sold as a separate buildable lot. He has furnished <br />the past tax records and an affidavit from the previous owner stating <br />that both lots were taxed separately never receiving benefit of homestead <br />tax status. The Zoning Administrator remembers telling the real estate <br />agent, Mary Robinson, at least nine months ago that common ownership in <br />this case would require a zoning review. In June, a new realtor informed <br />me I '.at Lot 4 with house had been sold and that Lot 3 was not included. <br />The realtor was informed that if the lot met 80% of area requirement that <br />a building permit could be issued - note, I did not consider that lot <br />width would also have to be 80%. After a survey. Lot 3 appears to- have <br />90% of area requirement but lacks 80% of width requirement. Planning <br />Commission is asked to consider Sections 31.201 and 31.202 in rev.lewing <br />the application. <br />The neighbors are opposed to creating a new building site on Lot 3. <br />Their argument is summarized as follows: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />TOO small and narrow a lot - standard of 100' or in this case 80' <br />should be maintained. <br />Drainage concern - Lot 3 serves as a retention area, if additional <br />hardcover is added, how will this affect neighboring properties. <br />Exxt.ting house on Lot 4 is located 6' from mutual lot line. <br />New house proposed .foi such a narrow lot is too eunbitious.