Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />SUBJECT: <br />Planning Commission Members <br />Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator <br />April 12, 1984 <br />#783 - I.D. Caples - 4798 North Shore Drive - Variance <br />Application - Variance - Lot area and lot width <br />Variance application was originally tabled at the request of the applicant <br />before the October 17, 1983 meeting. <br />Area required - 1 acre <br />existing - 0.35 acre (15,360 sq. ft.) 0.22 acre (9,750 sq. ft.) <br />(exclusion of area of travelled <br />road) <br />variance - 0.65 acre (0.78 exclusive of area of travelled road) <br />Lot Width (street/front) * 140* <br />Existing - 75* <br />Variance - 65* <br />Exhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Exhibit C <br />Exhibit D <br />Exhibit E <br />Exhibit F <br />Exhibit G <br />Application <br />Plat Map <br />Property owner's list <br />Survey/site plan <br />Hennepin County Hand Out <br />Common ownership study <br />Applicant's attorney (exhibit and findings) <br />The subject property's tax delinquent record began in 1972 and in 1979 <br />was offered for public sale as a tax forfeit property. The property <br />never sold at the public auctions for the next four years until the <br />Caples purchased the property over the counter in August of 1983. The <br />County offered the enclosed hand out material (Exhibit E) advising that <br />there was no assurance that any property offered for sale (either through <br />a private sale to abutting property owners or at public sale) met the <br />standards for buildability of the local jurisdiction. Caples was advised <br />by the Orono staff that such a property would require a variance review <br />and the approval of the City Council. <br />The property was sold for $6,000, Caples made a down payment of $1,380 <br />with a balance of $4,800 to be paid over a ten-year period in annual <br />installment payments. <br />The applicant's attorney has compiled a packet of exhibits and findings <br />seeking your approval, are they acceptable, valid findings? Please <br />review them all. <br />t.Vl <br />•^4 <br />< ^ <br />#783 - I.I <br />April 12, <br />Page 2 <br />The prope: <br />north is ' <br />at the gr< <br />placed, i <br />the Park - <br />Would it 1 <br />driveway <br />no access <br />10 to the <br />would agr< <br />is able t< <br />Sewer is • <br />City over <br />The house <br />Note - 35 <br />assure th< <br />of a setb. <br />Two lots < <br />in earlie; <br />three or <br />The appli< <br />review by <br />approval < <br />applicati* <br />and the p- <br />should al <br />public US' <br />If Planni <br />10.08, Su <br />In additi <br />1. Appli <br />2. Prope <br />southwest