The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-20-1983 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1983 Council Representative - Timothy Adams CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2. 7:30 P.M. 7:45 P.M. #743 Willow Properties Inc., 350 Willow Drive South - preliminary subdivision #750 Maurice Wagener and Cedric DettlofU. Charles Street - vacation Action Items 3.#753 Larry w. Karkela, 4149 Highwood Road - variance Council meeting Work Session 4.#752 Michael Noel, 3125 Casco Circle - subdivision Continuation jf lots held in common ownership study Approval of Minutes Planning Commission minutes of May 16, 1983 Planning Commission minutes of June 6, 1983 __J®i3 J: ISSION MEETING BERS 7:30 P.M. NE 20, 198/ hy Adams roperties Inc., 350 Willow preliminary subdivision ^agener and Cedric Dettloff, t - vacation 1149 Highwood Road - variance >er to attend Council meeting Casco Circle ~ subdivision in common ownership study May 16, 1983 June 6, 1983 m k.r T? .V .'.I r\ H I ' >: '-v :V' s ’-' ,;••• CTTK>n^ //f^3 V1ILLA€E(0)F(Q)1€)NO I...-- 5_• *T!•.. j •.♦o mr' m.-9 -------- :• 0 -----O i : /' r- i//^ -•— iVi ' ooc •••* • ................ «Mtif*«i 1 w»in •^1 « ■tt 2 i'-i0 ■ -fv »■ ■ ■-1 .lii' TO: FROM; DATE; SUBJECT; Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabusth June 17, 1983 #743 Willow Properties, Inc., 350 Willow Drive South Preliminary Subdivison Application - Subdivision - Plat - 10 Lots - Review of Revised Preliminary Plan The ten lots each have the required area of 2 acres dry contiguous land. Lot I's building envelope is too restricted. The road can be moved to the south providing for at least a 20' to 30' north/south increase in the building envelope. This will require lot line realignments for Lots 8, 9 and 10. The original septic test sites would still be applicable. The wetlands have not been designated as drainage easements nor described in angles and bearings. The wetlands in the northeast corner is found at the 934 contour and the extensive wetlands area to the south and east can be located below the 932 contour. There will be dedications to the City for 33' of right of way for Willow Drive and 33' of right of way to the County for County Road 146. The plat road should be designated as an outlet. Upon a recommendation of preliminary approval of the plat, the applicant's engineer must submit engineered plans for the road. Staff recommends that the road be private and that the road be paved. Staff's recommendation that the road be private is based on the following findings; 1. Lot density ratio of 10 lots per 48.7 acres or 1 unit per 4.8 acres. 2. 1,400 feet length cul de sac. 3. Inability to create loop road or through road. 4. Environmentally sensitive area. 5. Based on rural standards lots are developed at maximum density. Gaffron reports that all lots are able to satisfy the standards of the on-site septic code based on the septic test information and proposed septic designs. Staff has been advised by the applicant that the separate, seven acre parcel has not been acquired from the original owner, K. Mix. Staff does not see how we can act on this Plai Jun« #74: pag€ 10 1 real The an u If P plan subd’ orig: is o\ To re appli zonin Appro rive South vision - lary Plan iry istricted. Least /elope. ) and Dplicable. sements Ln the extensive slow the it of -ounty ated approval gineered He ased or ad. at e standards information arate, ginal this Planning Commission June 17, 1983 #743 Willow Properties, page 2 -4 Inc., realized. ” the acquisition of the separate parcel is 1^ ^ _ • Commission finds thaf vi-.n subject to the condition that^stal? P*^°P°sed subdvision for Council action unMi cannot schedule the originally held in collf ownersMo w??h®^r"i IS owned by Willow Properties. " larger parcel Staff recommendation application'^of'^Willow^pLperties^Inc '"find° subdivisionzoning lot standards and thro^sr^e'. ««~1B Approval is subject to the following condition!? satisfied. 1* Road be relocated further <soh+-k enve?opl?"" north/south scale 2. S-sLSL"*' --ssr;u.' «- 3. an“described®wfth'ancl"f as drainage easements require flX^a^d'cciserv^tior"'"^"’ wetlands areas. conservation easement over all 4. ovel roid ou^J’ot® “ApplJ^an? [o^f T'" easements maintenance agreement to in=n enter into standard of private ro!d “P’'®®P snd maintenance 5.Park fee is determined as follows: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 at ?200.00 each for a total $1,600.00 Lots 6 and 7 at $100.00 each Applicant to Pay $1,800.00 park fee for a total 200.on $1,800.00 ailii i-/ 1. ■ r- H,,\ . •• v^.'" if V tl is (.^ :i .-_. but istrict. oposed e the cel ^division IR-IB lisfied. f order ng the 11 7%: D all isements iard -enance rmm\ 1,600.00 200.00 1,800.00 w' fcr-.r' -i.-.i %^ >i V 'f f« : V c;.-,.v;.: m K, - . • . . ■ \ ■ c '\' ' < h-o or in O »i o ft M o in <o O -1 u.m o UI r-tz in f-l ft CM M ft UJ H H info z M M m M M z z X CM in CMH S 1 o H K M> in 1ft o ft D 3 rH N O X uSi lU UJ in in tkL oc Hi UJ >• >- q: oc o o z o O Kl -J in in in inUJ UJz z ID oo o ft ft X X UJ ^ -J in u m ft incn M in ft a UJ Z Z O Hi zQ. M z O O til Z Xc o < < < Z ft r ' 1 Z ►- O M z 1 O UI liJ ft Z 1 or-o H in >ft z z K* ft -JO O lU •H CD Z UJ rH CO•-I O -1 Z X ^ o u S X rH 1 in a <# o <1 Kl O -J -J Kl X X ft Kl O o U -J o m a CL CD o ino < o 12)CM UJ UJ 12) K) •# z o z Kl cn in in z <r CO CM O Kl O CO O O O CM o cO o Kl O O O CM -J Kl O -0 n Kl -J Kl O UJ ft z CD ui S -* > O g M UJ ft in CO CD -1 •• O K cn < -I -I N ft ft in >- < < ^ < X X ^ z >r z 1-ft O CO O ft M M IH UJ iH U.z •H ID 2 UI fH ID £ £ > X rH o 5 rH ft -J ft 5 X rH in inUJ <1 o 1 H <1 O -1 Kl >-a Kl ft j ft ft Kl z zOHo in UI Z Ui CD o min 10 z z >>O u uCM z 5 z CM M H M in z »H MCM o CO o UJ «0 O -J in -J H>o <0 o ft ftCM -J Kl u z Kl O O rH O CM -J Kl O UJ Ui ft UJ ft Ui ft Uioftzoft£O ft zoO<ft o O 2 ^o o <. ft<o z Ui <o Z UJ <o Z UJ\<>• \<>-\<>•UJ ft < UI ft <UI ft <z CL UJ ft £CL Ui ft £CL UJ CL<o Z X <o 2 X <o Z Xzft5< z ft z <Z ft 3 <CL o H a O H CL O H ET‘ ';.T iJ* :.*. ■ wm § m lU UI z i X X q I cn ft ft z M «0 M Oo u 5 ID < »- O H 10oo o -i CD CD -J ID Z H UJ < U <M H H 14. O 10 14. CO I4J < < o r4 z H D. Z O 10 < r-l m CM I N I iSi M 40 M lO C lij O z lo U. E S ilJ O M CD Hr 40 z 141 CO UJ H U. lii U < O Z -I K <0 D 10 I4l U to < K CL Ul< tt X XI- OH H 40 X CD 40 111r oo < a o CK < I4i o. iM GL r } TO; FROM DATE SUBJ] I ha ’ foil! m.m .V /> -*.^3 1 '■^ -- ■ . s^ ^ >:- :■ V f V :mm-5^ •i;W I V: fr' f ti. 1 Vi TO: FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, On Site Manager June 15, 1983 Proposed Subdivision for Willow Properties, Gary Peterson - Soils and Site Investigation Review I have reviewed the ten proposed lots and wish to make the following comments: Based on the Hennepin County Soil Survey, soils on this property include Lester loams and clay loams, Hayden loams, Hamel loams and LeSeur loams, as well as a good deal of marsh. Tested sites are located on the higher, better-drained soils. Some areas of sandy soil were reported on the most easterly lots. Based on the soils and water table data submitted, shallow trench or standard trench systems appear suitable for all lots. Following is a summary of the soils data for each site: Lot 1 Block 1 - Percolation Rate Average 22 MPI both sites - Primary site - slope 5% - mottling at 3.5' - water table at 3.5’ - modified shallow trench system* Maximum Trench Depth 6" into original soil - Alternate site - slope 8% - mottling at 4.0' Water table at 4.9' - shallow trench system - maximum trench depth 12" into original soil Lot 2 Block 1 - Percolation Rate Average 18 MPI both sites - Primary site - slope 7% - mottling at 4.2', 5.0' - water table at 4.5' , 5»5' - shallow trenches - Maximum Trench Depth 14" into original soil. - Alternate site - slope 8% - mottling at 3.3' - water table at 3.3' - modified shallow trenches* - maximum trench depth 4" into original soil Lot 3 Block 1 - Percolation Rate Average 23 MPI both sites - Primary site - slope 10% - mottling at 4.0', 4.5' - water table at 4.0', 5.5' - shallow trenches - maximum trench depth 12" into original soil - Alternate site - slope 8% - mottling at 3.5' - water table at 3.6' - modified shallow trenches*- Maximum m :e the on \s, me >le :h j is both aater n* maximum both sites .0* - water mum Trench - water max imum both 4.5' - “ water aximum * Jeanne A. Mabusth June 15, 1983 page 2 Trench Depth 6" into natural soil Lot 4 Block 1 - Percolation Rate Average 19 MPI both sites - Primary site - slope 12% - mottling at 5.0', 5.8' - water table at 7.7', 7.2* - standard trenches - maximum trench depth 24” into original soil -- Alternate site - slope 14% - mottling at 5.0' - water table not encountered - standard trenches - maximum trench depth 24" into original soil Lot 5 Block 1 - Percolation Rate Average 8 MPI (primary site) 28 MPI (alternate site) - Primary site - slope 7% - sandy soils, mottling not en countered, water table at 5.3', 6.0' - standard trenches - maximum trench depth 28" into original soil - Alternate site - slope 7% - mottling at 5.0' - water table at 5.2' - standard trenches - maximum trench depth 24" into original soil Lot 6 Block 1 - Percolation rate average 13 MPI (primary site) 19 MPI (alternate site) - Primary site - slope 9% - mottling not encountered - water table at 7.5', 7.8' - standard trenches - Alternate site - slope 10-12% - mottling at 4.3', water table at 6.8' - shallow trenches - maximum trench depth 16" into original soil Lot 1 Block 2 - Percolation Rate Average 26.3 MPI both sites - Primary site - slope 8% - mottling at 5.5', 5.9', water table at 5.6', 5.9' - standard trenches - maximum trench depth 30" into original soil - Alternate site - slope 7% - mottling at 3.5', water table at 4.3' - modified shallow trenches* - maximum trench depth 6” into original soil Lot 2 Block 2 - Percolation rate Average 31 MPI both sites - Primary site - slope 5% - mottling at 3.5' - water table at 3.6', 3.7' - modified shallow trenches* Alternate site - slope 5% - mottling at 3.0' - water table at 3.2' - modified shallow trenches* or Mound - maximum trench depth - at soil surface (see note below re modified trenches) Lot 3 Block 2 - Percolation Rate Average 10 MPI both sites - Primary site - slope 8% - mottled at 4.5', 5.0' - water Jean June page I r de\^ etc wh€ cai; IJ.ll MljMMIIWl I both 5.8* - s “ maximum * - water maximum trench (primary ing not en- ard trenches 1 - water trench depth I (primary ntered - water 4.3', water rench depth 16" MPI both sites 5.9', water ximum trench , water table lum trench both sites ■ water table - water table ^ - maximum ow re modified ►I both sites ;.0' - water ■ '^^11 • • ,5*1 i{9r .ft; f HkdM A ‘i'-M r Jeanne A. Mabusth June 15, 1983 page 3 table at 4.5', 5.3' " shallow trenches - maximum trench depth 18" into original soil ,.09. waterTV-14. ci-hp — slops 6% •“ inottlsd st 3*8 # wausr ' tabl^at 3.8' - modified shallow trenches" - maximum trench depth 10" into original soil Lot 4 Block 2 Percolation Rate Average 14 both sites - Primary site - slope 7% - mottling at 4,4 , 5.5 water table at 4.4', 5.6' - shallow trencher - maximum . trench depth 17" into original soil _ - Alternate site - slope 5% - mottling at 4.0 15" table at 6.4’ - shallow trenches - maximum trench depth 1 into original soil. "Modified Shallow Trenches - whep water table or mottling is between 3.0' and 4.0’ below the surface, a standard 12" rock depth (6" under pipe, 2" conjunction with an appropriate depth of f^ materi to retain a 3.0' separation between the bottom or trenc e and the water table or mottling. Fill should consist of material classified as loamy sand (USDA * The original soil must be dryer than the plastic limit before placing fill. The original Th“^ ^or disced to break up the surface vegetation mat. The ?Lm^ sand ?ill must be placed over the entire area so that no trench will be located less than 10 from the fill. The depth of fill requiied will depend on the allowable depth of excavation into original soil based on the water table or mottling. I recommend that t" ; subdivision be approved as . developer should be warned to keep all traffic, fill excavation, etc awly from the tested drainfield sites. In some cases where road construction will be near the tested sites, ex ra caution must be taken. MPG;j1 Tium trench Mater maximum oth sites .5 I _ max xmum - water ench depth 12" 5r mottling tandard used in aterial d£ trenches Dnsist of ication). c limit be scarified t. The area so that e edge of nd on the 1 based on posed. The 1 excavation, te cases :es, extra TO:Planning Commission FROM;Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator DATE;June 16, 1983 SUBJECT; #750 Maurice Wagener and Cedric Dettloff, Charles Street - vacation Applicable Ordinance - City and State Orono Zoning Ordinance 32.700 - Vacation of Streets Orono Zoning Ordinance 33.050 - Vacation - no effect on boundary lines State Statute 412.851 - Vacation of streets (enclosed in your packet) List of Exhibits -Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Petition for Vacation Property Owner List Plat Map Staff Sketch of Area S. S. Highways 1.05 S. S. 412.851 The City is in receipt of a petition for the vacation of Charles Street. Charles Street was platted as a part of the Orono Orchards plat with a 33 foot wide right of way. The 33 feet does not meet current standards for a city road. Staff agrees with the petitioners given the current pattern of development and use of the surrounding properties there is no need for a public road connecting intersecting roads [Woodhill Road and Lyman Avenue [Lane]]. Larry Berg representing Woodhill Country Club has called to question the purpose of the vacation. I advised him that the wetlands area intersecting both pjtitioners' properties will still hold them at the two unit level. He was concerned that the acquisition of the additional footage would create new lots. I understand Berg will be present for the public hearing. It would appear based on S. S. Highways 1.05 that the petitioners as original fee owners of the subject street will acquire the entire 33' strip. Although statute does not require that all abutting property owners sign a petition of vacation, I strongly recommend that Woodhill Country Club respond in writing to the proposed vacation before City approves vacation. Staff Recommendation To approve the vacation of Charles Street as described in the plat Orono Orchards based on the following findings; m rn 4 I \'i Kv: Pl2 Jur pac JA^ Charles t on ed in your .on of Charles le Orono le 33 feet Itaff agrees levelopment leed for .11 Road and railed to .ra that the rti.es will rerned that ;ate new lots, raring. :he petitioners require the j property )minend that )posed vacation Lbed in the 5: Planning Commission June 16, 1983 page 2 JAM:jl 33' wide right of way does not meet current standards for City road. There i.s no need for a public road linking Lyman and Woodhill based on current pattern of neighborhood de velopment . Request to vacate is made by all abutting property owners - Maurice Wagener, Cedric Dettloff and Wood- hill Country Club. Support for petition by all surrounding property owners within 350' radius. : standards Lyman and )orhood de- >roperty ind Wood- )perty M.P wm • • •J '.i, n.- 2'Kr.. t? t»» . i 1 m % if 'r;4*J y : 4 I 'f •1 IL.. N I*;" •• •. Iv- j** ■ '•■ ■■ ■ PETITION FOR VACATION OF UNIMPROVED STREET TO: City Council of tho City of Orono The undersigned owner of properties abutting on the platted but unimproved street designated as Charles Street in the plat of Orono Orchards lying between Woodhill Avenue and Lyman Lane hereby respectfully petition the City Council of the City of Orono for an order vacating Charles Street between ivoodhill Avenue and Lyman Lane in the Orono Orchards plat. This petition is based on the following facts: Charles Street has n? ;er been opened as a street fo.r pul lie use between Woodhill Avenue and Lyman Lane. There is no need for a street in the location where Charles Street was originally platted. A vacation of Charles Street between V/oodhill Avenue and Lyman Lane would not deprive the public of any existing street facilities and would eliminate the need for any street ever being constructed between Vvoodhill Avenue and Lyman Lane. Charles Street was platted as a part of the Orono Orchards plat as a 33 toot-wide street. All ot the property, if the street were vacated woulc revert to the adjoining property owners on the west of Charles Street i.e. Maurice J. Wagoner and Virginia A. Wagener as to Lot 46 and Cedric E. Dettlotf and Marion Dettloft as to Lot 43. That the undersigned, Maurice J. Wagener and Virginia A. Wagener, husband and wife, are the fee owners of the property described as Lots 46 and 47, Orono Orchards abutting Charles Street on the west tor a distance ot 500 feet north from the platted m inte unde wife Char Stre owne prop the inte TREE! ig on the platted !t in the plat of Lyman Lane hereby ;y of Crono for an enue and Lyman .3 based on the (treet for puilic :e is no need for a >riginally platted, ^nue and Lyman Lane ^et facilities and ig constructed i Orono Orchards :ty, if the street rty owners on the Id Virginia A. lacion Dettloff as id Virginia A. the property ting Charles Street D the platted MPi intersection of Charles Street and Woodhill Avenue. That the undersigned Cedric E. Dettloff and Marion Dettloff, husband and wife, are the fee owners of Lots 43 and 44, Orono Orchards abutting Charles Street on the west from the platted intersection of Charles Street with Lyman Lane to the northerly boundary of the properties owned by Maurice J. Wagener and Virginia A. Wagener. That the (joodhill Country Club is the fee owner of the property abutting the unimproved Charles Street on the east from the platted intersection with Woodhill Avenue to the platted intersection with Lyman Lane. Respectfully submitted. V^.^^nia A. Wagene^ PER31X, HARVEY & THORFINNSON, P.A. BY:'- Ross Thorf'irmjs Attorney tor N'aur^e J. Wagener and Virginia A. Wagener Representing All Petitioners in This Matter. 17 Tenth Avenue South P.O. Box 190 ilopkins, HN 55343 Telephone: (612) 935-4468 Cedric E. Dettloff' . .= ■5^ ifm ;.... ■'rntamm r lA Kl ^ 'J* M CL Ulo < Q. O CL Ul QC 1C Ul H 40 >•40 §M C 4/. CC M O *-l U. Z 40 M tt Ui s» ••• h2 c; o Ula >• o Hss >- o u M CL Uls UJz Kl «0 N C^ lA lA Ooo rH CM K> CM I rA I CM O COm -J H < 40 HU. Ul u. Z O O u. -J 40 U. H Z O H Ul -J Ui ^ H Q U h- M Ul U O a M QC lA UJ O iA Ul CM U U rA rA O' fO IA IA H M >- 3 -J H Ul ro CO o Kl O X Xo o o Kl 00 3 •H Oo a o q:CO CM -I r*l -J M Kl Z rJ a I o H g rC I CM O O O CM CO O Kl O H U q: H >- ? a5 Ho z u u o q: rA Ch Kl lA lA M M X Z 88 O O 3 3 OOo3 oo CM <H <M >- r 40 O tt Q 40 CO O tt o CH O <tt O O X rH o u X a iH CM CK O Kl CM I iH rA I CM O oao <0 Kl O C^ »H Oo -J o < a H H Ui 40 H S Sx H 40 O O 3 UJ < X a Ul 40 (0 < IA X IA Ure :s re H o N O H Ul CM < Kl CM IH rH rA I CM O X H H Z M C X 40 a Hz > rA *> Kl IA IA Kl Oo vf Kl Kl CM I <0 CO Kl CO O <^ r •H o O H ^ ^M <40 C H < 40 < X N o o >- X ^ H f-l 3 I IA Kl CO Kl H Ul Kl a CM D CO rH < Kl O X re CM D lA -rC CM X rH M X CO Kl Ui «• 40 O -1 “1 N o >- <r < CO 3 <0 Kl Qre •oooo rA Kl CM t H rA rA I CM O CO Kl < H U. UJ U. OU. -J U- H O H -J UJ H O H UJ U O M tt UJ a Ulu u H 40 O CO rAo Kl lA IA O rA O O rH CM M < O H < IA N lA >• CM < ri 3 Qre < -J X - O CO < “1 iH 3 o CM o o rH CJ Kl CM I rH rH I CM O CO Kl rH O Oo -<H Ul vfoo o o < < Ul UJ Ul Ul H H M M X X 3 3 rH Kl IA Ul IA > - < -i H o N CM >- CM ^ rA 3 ZUH < 40 J <HOH UJ U. M X H. X Kl M o 3oO UJ <CM X Kl O Q tt tt O > H Kl o 3 o «8 o re ”1 O <( UJ a IA o X o > lA X o tt tt Kl X V H X X re tt X X Kl X Ul UJ X X re tt CM CM X Ul UJ 40 CM I Q IA CM Z Z M D 3 tt o M z H tt IA UJ Ul Kl z 40 CO Ul Kl Z O CD < Z Kl >- X Kl CD CD CM O 40 40 3 IA CM O << H X CM UJ tt CD CM < 1 O X X O IA 1 O 3 3 <1 Z Z 1 3 3 o X X H H O N <H H o r H X 3 M M X 3 1 -> >•X M X 2 X -> -1X a o. z X <C Z X X X X 1 M Z 1 Ul Ui 3 O 1 2 o <1 UJ Ui CM 40 40 < X CM U O H CM X X X CM 4J U O IA Q O O X M O UJ o tt Q. o <O M M O > •J GO Kl Kl lA IA re tt X X << < X X H 2 N < 3 O H O Ul CM Z IA Z CM M rH X <f Ul CM U. O M O 3 Ul Kl > «• ^ < < Kl Z X CM <( lU I X Q. CO H rH -J UJ rH I 40 LA Ul Kl O -io re CM < CO #H I Kl O U <X 111 CL rH O' Kl X tA O UJ lA c: > < < u_ ♦4 < X 40 H < UJ X H X < tt O N < o >- X CM IA Z Z GO Ul Ui CD CD < < 3 3 ooo Ul<r >IA < <H UJ -1 -1 >• N < Kl Z CM < UJ Ulu u M M tt tt X X < < X X < z3 O H O Ul CM Z IA Z CM M rH X rH I IA Kl O CM CM 00 rA Kl O O O tt tt < < X X >- < X H- < O N CM >• 40 CD UJ tt X tt tt X o tt X a O <( tt O o < tt a o Z UJ <O Z UJ < < >- \<C H \ tt < UJ tt < Ui CL lu a X Q. UJ O. Xo Z X <O Z X <re 3 < z re 3 < ZCL O H CL O H 1.06. It is to mal picadct street > statiito Case 64. U (1944)2 65. /(■> 66. Bi Minn. 5 ally U..« Co.SST. 160.05,; 67. St Minn. I Marcks N.W.2d (l%5) 2 (wltcrc i caserncn upon rcl these pu; owners). 68. Sir 129, 36 abandoni purposes aiteinpie< way sysn dedicator dcdicalin ac(|uired vm m .......I il^■■lllllllll■IMW m o o o JO K> Cvi I <0 r-» 1-4 I inm CO Kl o CM O o r-4 CJ Kl CM I I CM O €0 Kl r r r r •J<c H UJ r-l 4> o o ro < < in lu ui lu in X X > UJ Ui < M 1-M 2 z X X < X XXX >• - CM •< O ID f-i X i-i o o o <ro o '' ' ; u >- CD < O o lyu. M 3 ro <r UJ Kl CM U. < O •4 K»O MXoQ m O 3 UJ M r-l ft ft > in UJ UJ .J UI Q. 9* Kl > «• K^ CNJ Z X (D < -J in ro UI Ui CD to < Z < o Ui in Kl z X ft > CVJ <C < 1- X CM < lU < < 1 3 3 *<1 X (3. uN <<0 >- z z M -J Ui < X-> 1 >- X •H < z •H X 1 UJ UI 3 O 1 <n in >- < CM U U H in UJ UJ -j H O M M O UJ Kl o ^ ^ < CO ft ft CM Z 3 3 in r < < CM l-l O ft ft O N CM<<0>- CO iH z X CVI <lO X X rH X m o u u M 3 K> nT Kl o in « cr > in Ui UJ X X GO UJ UJ O O -t X< < H- X X 3 < 1^4 < UJ UJ u u !-• iH q: a o z>< < < 3 o CM in CM O H UJ o o 0 UJ<r >ro < Kl 2 CJ < 1 X 00 >• I inKl o CM CM CO r-4 ro O <h* UJ iH Q o m < < m UJ UJ UJ in X X > UJ UJ < H* M M Z Z >- ^ U O -i H q: a <<C ^ O N X X CM >• CJ < O (D f-c 3 a ttOG X Oa < a o a X UI < < >- \ a < UJ a. UJ Q. X o X X 5 n: S < z ou o H Ui CK OK X O O < ft O O Z UJ < < >• \ ft < UI OL UJ a X o z X ^ ft 3 < Z ft O I- V.L >%• - -i- •• ] . i:? ami #-• 4 0 •i :V ^ ■■! •*^1 ■ f^ -.f. » highways § I.()6 from ihat susiained by the public generally.** It is a consequence of the exbr- else of a public right.*’ /T" The Minnesota statute which provides for the dedication of roads cannot be constructed to extend public dedication to a width greater than that of actual public use without violating the constitutional prohibition against the taking of public property without due process of law.** ^ 1.05. Reversion to nwni»r.--------------------------—&AA i.. Upon the vacation, discontinuance, or abandonment of a highway the | absolute title to the land reverts to the owner of the fee, who may or may J _m>« be the abutting owner_jy DTM)n vacaiK)ii or ah;indonnu»nt n~-.r.iporty ^ for highway purposes, title reverts to the dedicator when the plat so provides although he is not an abutting owner.** 1.06. Pleading. It is unnecessary to allege in a complaint that the municipality had funds to make repairs; want of funds, if a defense at idl. is new matter to be pleaded by ihc defendant.** It must be alleged in the complaint that the street was a public street of the defendant.’® It must be alleged that the suuitory notice of the los.s or injury hns been eiven,^* Cases arc cited below involving the sufficiency of particular complaints.’* 64. Underwood v. Hinpire Towti [3d. (1944)217 Minn. 385. 14 N.W.2d459 65. hi. 66. Barfncdit v. Town 13d. (1975) .304 Minn. 505. 232 N.W.2d 420. .See ,etv/iT* ally U.S. Const, aincnd. .\IV; Mi.nn. Const, an. I. § 2; Minn. .Si.at. 5 160.05, subd. I. 67. Stccncrson v. romainc (imS) 106 Minn. 225, 119 N.W. 400; State v Murcks (1949) 228 Minn. 129. 36 N.W.2d 594; Buck v. City of Winona (l%5)27[ Minn. 145, 135 N.W.2d 190 (where city condemned and paid for easement to be used lor j>ark purposes, upon release of its right to use land for these purposes, land must revert to fee owners). 68. State v. Marcks (1949) 228 .Minn. 129, 36 N.W.2d 594 (where eily had abandoned use of property for highway purposes long prior to date state attempted to take it over as pan of high way system, and such land reverted t»> dedicator or its assigns by reason of plat dedicating such land so providing, state acquired no interest therein). 69. Shanle v. City of .Minneapolis (l«7I) 17 Minn. .308 (C,il. 284); l.ind- holm V City of St. Paul (1872) 19 .Minn. 245 (Gil. 204): Neizer v. City ofCrook- ston (1894) 59 Minn. 244, 61 N.W'. 21. 70. .SVf Parrant v. First Div.. St. P. & F. Ry. (1868) 13 .Minn. 311 (Gil. 286); .Shanle v. City of Minneapolis (1871) 17 Minn. 308 (Gil. 284); Furnell v. City of St. Paul (1873) 20 Minn. 117 (Gil. 1 01); Phelps V. City of Mankato (1876) 23 Minn. 276; KIcopfert v. Citv of Minne apolis (1903) ‘70 Minn. 158. 95 N.W. 7t. McLaughlin v. Citv of Brccken- ridge (1913) 122 Minn. 154. 142 N.W. 1.34; Slate e.v r<’/. Clark v. Qninn (19)6) 1-32 Minn. 219. 156 N.W'. 2.S4 SVe Minn Si ai 466.05; 4 Wm Mi k i,, ,.,. I.. Rl \. 93 (1978) (notice of claim re quirement under .Minnesota Municipal Ion Liability Act). 72. Farrant v. First Div., .St. P. P. R.R. (IShS) 13 Minn. 311 (Ciil. 286); Lindholm v. City of St. Paul (1872) I'i Minn. 245 (Gil. 21)4) (complaint held sullicieni to insiify recovery for medical 1.3.3 HIGHWAYS § 1.06 , from ihai sustained by the public generally.** It is a consequence of the excr- CISC ofa public right.*’ //y The Minnesota statute which provides for the dedication of roads cannot be constructed to extend public dedication to a width greater than that of actual public use without violating the constitutional prohibition against the taking of public property without due process of law.** ^ 1.05. Reversion to ownyr ------------------------------ Upon the vacation, discontinuance, or abandonment of a highway the absolute title to the land reverts to the owner of the fee, who may or may not be the abutting ownerj;>bpon vacation or abtindoiimmi for highway purposes, title reverts to the dedicator when the plat so provides although he is not an abutting owner.*' 1.06. Pleading. It IS unnecessary to allege in a complaint that the municipality had lunds to make repairs; want of funds, if a defense at .all, is new matter to be pleaded by ihe defendant.** It must be alleged in the complaint that the street was a public street of the defendant.’- It must be alleged that the statutory notice of the loss or injury has been given.” Cases are cited below involving the sulTiciency of particular complaints.’- '.f'• 64. Underwood v, Umpire Town Bd. (1944)217 Minn. .185, l4N.W.2d4S9 65. M. 66. Barfnecht v. Town Rd. (I97.S) .104 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420. See fjcticr- (illy U.S. Const, amend. .\IV; Min.n. Co.NST. art. I, § 2; Minn. .Sr,.\i. ;; I60.05, siibd. I. 67. Sieener.son v. Fomainc (IW8) 106 Minn. 225. 119 N.W. 4(H); .State v. Marcks (1949) 228 Minn. 129. 36 NAV.2d 5^4; Buck v. City of Winona (1%5)271 Minn. 145, 135 N.W.2d 190 (where city condemned and paid for easement to be used for park purposes, upon release of its right to use land for these purposes, land must revert to fee owners). 68. State v. Marcks (1949) 228 .Minn. 129, 36 N.W.2d 594 (where city had abandoned use of property for Itighway purposes long prior to date state attempted to take it over as part of high way system, and such land reverted to dedieaior or its assigns by reasrm of plat dedicating such land so providing, state aequired no interest therein). 69. Shartic v. City of .Minneapolis (l«7l) 17 .Minn. .108 (Gil. 284); l.ind- holm V. City of St. Paul (1872) 19 Minn. 24.S (Gil. 204): Nelzer v. City of Crook- sion (1894) 59 Minn. 244. 61 N.W. 21. 70. See Farrant v. First Div.. St. P. & P. Ry. (1868) 13 Minn, 311 (Gil. 286); Shartle v. City of Minneapolis (1871) 17 Minn. 308 (Gil. 284); I'urnell v. City of St. Paul (l,S7.1) 20 .Minn. 117 (Gil. lOI); Phelps V. City of Mankato (1876) 23 Minn. 276; KIcopfert v. City of Minne apolis (1903) ‘X) Minn. 158, 95 N W 90S. . - . . 71. .McLaughlin v. Citv of Breeken- ndge (191.1) |22 Minn. 154. 142 N.W. 1.14; .State I'.v re/. Clark v. Oiiinn (1916) 132 Minn. 219. 156 N.W. 284. See .Minn Si.\r § 466.05; 4 Wm Mirc iit i.i. L. Ri.v. 93 (197S) Oioiiee of claim re quirement under Minnesota Municipal Ion I.lability Act). 72. Farrant v. First Oiv.. .St. p. P. R.R. (1868) 13 Minn. 3I| (CJil. 286); l.indholm v. City of St. Paul (1872) 19 Minn. 24^ (Gil. 204) (complaint held sullicient to justify recovery for medical t ?! * I i ) I r I • i mi Hi M w^-m m^.i .*.•< ^4 >r j- L*'»:!:• ■*v< .\‘l X; :'. ' i |:i <• 412.751 STATUTORY CITIES 7128 History: 1949 c 119 s 90; 1973 c 123 art 2 s I subd 2 • • 4I2.75I EMERGENCY DEBT CERTIFICATES. If in any year the receipts from taxes or other sources should from some unforeseen cause become insufficient for the ordinary expenses of the city or if any calamity or any other public emergency should subject the city to the neces sity of making extraordinary expenditures, the council mav authorize the sale by the city treasurer of emergency debt certificates to run not to exceed two years and to bear interest at not more than seven percent per year. A tax sufficient to redeem all such certificates at maturity shall be levied as part of the budget for the lollowing year. The authorization of an issue of such emergency debt certifi cates shall be given by an ordinance approved by all the members of the council. History: 1949 c 119 s 91; 1974 c 337 .v 14 412.761 ( Repealed. I%7 c 2S9 s 18 j 412.771 ( Repealed. 1967 c 289 s 18 j 412.781 ( Repealed. 1967 c 289 s 18 ) 412.791 ( Repealed. 1967 c 289 s 18 | 412.801 ( Repealed. 1967 c 289 s IS | 412.811 ( Repealed. 1967 c 289 s 18 ] 412.821 ( Repealed. 1967 c 289 s 18 j GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS 412.831 OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. The council shall, .innually at its first meeting of the year, designate a legal newspaper of general circulation in the city as its official* new,spaper. in which shall be published such ordinances and other matters as are reejuired by law to be so published and such other matters as the council mav deem it advisable and in the public intere.st to have published in this manner. History: 1949 c 119 s 100; 1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 suhd 2 412.841 ( Repealed. 1976 c 44 s 70 ) 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way. or any part thereol. on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacatetl. When there h.is been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only l)y a vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do .so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' publisheil and posted notice. After a re.solution of v.ication is adopteil, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in his transfer records and note upon the instrument, over his official signature, the words “entered in the transfer record. I be notice shall then be filed with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any such vacation proceedings. 1949 c 119 s 102; 1953 c 735 s 12; 1957 c 383 s 1; 1967 c 289 s 15; 1969 c9 s 85; 1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 suhd 1; 1973 c 494 s 11; 1976 c 181 s 2 . t. p iii: hi • : TC FI Di SI Z< T< Ai R A sources should from some y expenses of the city or if ibject the city to the neces- 1 may authorize the sale by in not to exceed two years >er year. A tax sufficient to d as part of the budget for uch emergency debt certifi- he members of the council. KOUS ^ the year, designate a legal tficial newspaper, in which » as are required by law to may deem it advisable and ubd 2 eet. alley, public grounds, •r on petition of a majority )ublic grounds, public way, no petition, the resolution lembers of the council. No interest of the public to do and posted notice. After a )are a notice of completion he city, an identification of hereof and a description of e shall be presented to the fer records and note upon Is “entered in the transfer ty recorder. Any failure to roceedings. U 383 s I; 1967 c 289 s 15; f 11; 1976 c 181s 2 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT; Planning Committee Jean A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator June 16, 1983 #753 Larry W. Karkela 4149 Highwood Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-IB Total Lot Area - 9,878 SF Application ~ Setback variance Street setback required = 30' existing = 1.4’ into road right of way proposed = 2' variance =28' or 93% Side setback required = 10' existing = 1.9' proposed = 2' variance =8' or 80% Review of Hardcover I —Area within 75' - 250 Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 6,503 SF 1,626 SF or 25% : 2,008 *1 SF or 31% = 2,404 *2 SF or 37% *1 House Garage Paved pkg + walking areas 958 SF 360 SF 958 SF 672 SF 84 SF 690 SF House Garage Deck Paved areas 690 SF 2,404 SF 2,008 SF List of Exibits -Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Application Plat Map Property Owners List Addendum Survey Elevations Site Plan •f ■. ■. 6% over allowed 12% over allowed Pla Jun pag The to non doo on lot The sto the Exc mus The det loc fee lot wor mai The lir Sta To fol c allowed 2r allowed Planning Committee June 16, 1983 page 2 ■■'S The applicant applies for side and street setback variances to construct a new 24' x 28' detached garage to replace the old non conforming 20' x 18' garage. The proposed garage will have doors facing away from the street providing for a turnaround on the site. Lot 22 will continue to use a shared access via lot 23. The structure will be two stories providing for additional storage and work areas. Plumbing will not be allowed within the new structure. Excessive hardcover is the problem with this review. Applicant must reduce hardcover - there are several options: 1. 2. Reduce size of proposed garage. Remove paved areas used for offstreet parking reserve 15' x 20' for turnaround. 3. 4. Remove deck area on proposed garage. Remove paved walk areas not to be used by new owner. The street setback is consistent with the setbacks of surrounding detached garages. Staff would agree hardcover is reduced by locating the garage closer to the street right of way but two feet is just a bit too close. The actual road is 6 feet from the lot line and would be 8 feet from the proposed structure. I would recommend a 4 foot setback from the street right of way to maintain at least a 10 foot setback from actual travelled road. The new garage must be at least 3 feet from the side property line. Staff Recommendation To approve setback variances and an increase of % of additional hardcover to permit the construction of a X ' detached garage for Larry VJ. Karkela based on the following hardships and findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The lot is 10' narrower along the street side than along the shoreline. Reduce hardcover by approving substandard set backs. Consistent with existing improvements on surrounding properties. The location of improvements on lot with shared access. Topography - severe slope. Pla Jun pag n ariances Lace the old je will have iirnaround access via itional ed within . Applicant ing - new of surrounding educed by ay but two feet from the cture. I ht of way to veiled road. e property SF or iction of a ised on the 5ide set surrounding shared Planning Committee June 16, 1983 page 3 Approval is based on the following conditions: 1. Garage must be located 3_ feet from the interior/ side lot line and _±_ feet from the street right of way. 2. Applicant must remove 195 SF or 3% of existing and propossd hardcover — applicant to decide * for a total of 9% of excess hardcover. 3. New structure will not be permitted to have interior plumbing. 4. Doors must face away from street JAM:jl ; r. 'A mm m U • 141 O CD h-oco CL lUoc r lij H CO >• CO zo M H < H r CO q: m O -I li. Z CO M CK lii >• Z h- 3 d: O UJ Q. >- O H U Z OL UJ CL >• O H OC Z CL M CL UJ ( o o o OC ro 3 CM X I O N* IH I 1^ O 10 < U I H M X UJ (u z : M o: I <0 ^ lO o UJ o : QC 3 < O • UJ UJ ' o o < O OC H UJo to CM X -J I CD UJ UJ N M ^ X ^ UL U. I o c^ a q: O UJ UJ CO (O <0^00 to O CO CK o o o q: < < o o ^ Q IK H 3* g < CK_ o c < to 3 “ CM X I CD M « «-4 X UJ UJ: I 10 CO c h** UJ UJ O 10 -i -i <to O CK QC i CO ^ - ^o Z OC < L u a UJ a 3sHO Z X 2 <tt 3 < 2 OC CD a o H interior/ t right of sting and - for a ve interior u I to ^ • lii0 e CL h- q:s 01oc z: Ul h-in >- (O zo M z M II. Ul1111 O Q O O O o q: CM CM O Oo o: ^ Q•*8 lO 3 CM X I O M^ z -oto I O lA COto o -I z o o to O lA O lA O 3 Is ^ o ^ o o to 3 CM I VI o o:fS, M < ^ I u^ u r!. = O lA Z O' ^ *0 CO <f to o -> o < - O ^ Z 3 M> o to (A O lA d: a lA o o U 3 “liin X< o Z lA Z O O Z *-i 3 H ^ O 3 < d:o <z CO CM -> O Oo a in ^0*0 ^ o o 3 to 3 UJ CM Z O I 10 zM M •H M I UJ H O O (A lA CO <f to O “) a UJ o ^ 10 3 O 58*^ UJ 3 H Z (A 10M < Z oZ O z Z lA 5 o o “) <f z too o O 3 o ^ o to 3 CM Z I 10 M^ z £I N O CM to O <o ^ 3 O to -i *1 O lA UJ Ul O lA lA CA O UJ Ul 3 MMX 3 3 10 Z 3 3 M Z CO ^ to o M UJ CM •0 >• o 3 3 ^ Z 28 Z < <H lA CO M fv >to o o < K •J CM CM Ul to r oZ (A o o <o Q <o o O o o to o Q < 3 M o 3 H o 3 t-o 3 Z Z O 3 tA o 3 3 O -M Ul Ul O O <lA lUU.o _ _o ^O ^ ^ Ci <t O lA (A D o H O Ul OZ lA ^ Q Z Z 3 M>P lA <A 3 M>0 3 3 3 *0 o K-O X 3 M) M 3 o o o to 5 3 3 to O Ul Ul to o Ul 3 O lA to Ul to 3 lA lA O lA to 3 Ul UJ O LA to 3 > >O lA to 3 3 O Z to 3 2 P lA>• Z CM X ^ ^ O lA CM X >- >- O lA CM X -J -1 O lA CM X z O Z CM X <<Z lAS1 10 Ul Ul O 1 o UJ Ul o 1 10 < <O 1 10 <«J z 1 10 3 M <X3 O M Z Z 3 M Z Z 3 tv M X X 3 M <<<tv M tu >oUlM X I 0^X z X X 0^X >•0 (A X X UJ -1 X H3 V 3 3 10 Z UJ UJ 10 X M U -J ID Z Ul D z X >-10 < O K 1 M Z 1 M Z 1 M Z 1 o H lA o 1 10 in M £P9^ ^A*H H I N Ul UJ X rv Z Z X fv 3 M X3 Ul o 3 3 O O c^10 10 Q o lA M M p O ^D •J Ul lA Ul o o in «0 o3oUJ UJ c^ z 3 3 C^ Z rv _j -J lA Z P O Z o r <>- O CD CO O D M 0 0^5 ^33 tv 5 <4 3 P •r «0 >-vr D t-fc 9^S't 0 0^0 CO Ul Ul «-( o CO ^ UJ UJ O to Ul fv M P <0-4 O oZ 3 to o 3 3 ^ Z to o 10 10 ^ z to o Z Z sr z to O X X z to o 3 3 z to CO N.CM O CM O O o 3 Z O ^ O CA ^03 O UJ to 3 > CM X -I I 10 < h* M I 3 UJa oto o 3 3 UJ> o -J o iS M> CM -Jo o < O 3 X oto lA lA CO vr to o I zO M ^ -J _ 3 CO ^ UJto o z SE Z 3 UJ Z lA Z5 ^ o z ^03 ^ o p o to 3 CM X «0 I 10 M z ^ X o t 3< O ^ CDr* Ulz > <C M < 3 > O UJ ^ o z < CD lA to<r to lA lA C^ CM O O o 3 lA lA ^ O Z Z O ^ O Ul Ul 3 OMt- tO 3 3 3 O CM X < < OI 10 z z oM 3 M3 to lA lA CO ^ to O CD I- 10 3 Ul tA CD O 3 M> Ul O HUJ M Z I >• >• UJ Ul _ o CO 3 3 ^ U. U. CO^ u. u. ^ CO ^ Ul Ul M to o -> 1 ^ z \ <o 3oo < <30 5 3 ti tL O 3a Ul < >- \ 3 < UJ UJ CL Z O H UJ 3 3 Z O O < 3 O O Z UJ < < >- \ 3 < UJ CL UJ 3 Z O Z X < (L O H Uf 3 3 Z O O < 3 O O Z Ul < < >• \ _ 3 < Ul 3 UJ 3 Z O Z X < Ul 3 3 Z O O < 3 O O Z UJ < < >- \ 3 < UJ 3 UJ a zO z X <3 S < Z 3 o H 4J 3 3 Z O £S 325^5 3 UJ 3 ZO s >s s3 S < z 3 O h- The much a st side In a in p with The nres ^see clac This stru The and lot Exhibit 4 Variance Application - Larry W. Karkela ^ 4l49 Highwood Rd* Lot 22 i.ighvfooj The nresent garage encroaches on the road R. 0, W. much^as 1.4 ft. It should be noted,however, t^t a strip of unpaved surface about *+ fj* sid^of existing garage, maintained by the present by as there is North owner. In addition, other garages in the neighborhood are located in posiSons comparable to the existing garage on lot ^2 with respect to the roadway. The contour of lot 22 and the adjoining lot 23, and the presence of a retaining wall, post, and bushes on lot 23 ? see attached drawing) dictate that the proposed garage e nlaced^L close to the lot21 line and the roadway as possible. This assumes that the garage door is on the west side of the structure to avoid backing directly into the roadway. The prouosed location would minimize the increase of hardcover and the" routine use of the parking area in the Nji* corner lot 23. Im is::^ mmmm A. if V;- .. f- ' m i> OF PROP onemnp ai Nota: G 1.4 ft. into str r CERTIFl I hereby certif this survey, pi my direct sup Surveyor unde I yuir V 'v /"« \•n '•w'■ ■cated 22 he 23ge be possible, "of the hardcover Tier of L ’ % •: ••yV ^ :• :V ^ j ^'4. ' » % OF PROPERTY rip G€org« £^» & Rita K» MeyTt U-- 4149 Uighwood Hoad, Mouad, MlBaateta Lot 22« Highwood, Laka Minnatonka, HoBnapia Oott»ty« H i e. H w 0 0 D Rd . - 4o.o - V 4*^; !•* •*» >T‘ Zo. a m Not*: Garaga aaeroaohaa 1.4 ft. plua 0.6 ft. aava Into atr'aaW-- »* •• I t 4. '•LOT 22. • a If/oI 'i I -1- - - ^ • •• LAK E M ! N N E T 0 n K A CERTIFICATE OP LOCATION OP BUILDDfO I hereby certify that on ^^ac« 19________jg 72 this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land .Surveyor under fie l^wa of the State of Minnesota. 1C CERTIPICATB OP SUBVET I hereby certify that on Surveyor under ttie lawa (-^L^-1; O this survey, plan, or report waa prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a ^ply Ri^stered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. JOHN J. RYAN. RBalSraRlD SURVBYOR. NO. 4400 PAUL J. CRANK. RKOIOTBRKD OURVKYOR. No. 4440 ••« ■. * W- i 't-:- ■ •! • F- f*? 4 T.-- , ^ • il4«| HidiKa I « 11 - iJtM A<itrwr r — • .....—... ., ------------------------------------------ TO: FROM; DATE; SUBJECT Zoning Applica Total The app All exi Portior is adec A publ: mmm : i A A A 4 •iiii-p- ' / V «r' wMMi 'X^ m y. . 1--•• I' -xm. mm V .-■ ^":5^ ■ I vt TO; FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Coromission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator June 16, 1983 #752 - Michael Noel, 3125 Casco Circle - Subdivision Zoninq District - LR-IC . Application - Subdivision - Work session Total Area - 103,300 or 2,3 acres The applicant proposes appear^ required setbacks i%;srs.s:; s.'sf,'.;hSuSTo; .sr».«« «-«■ Subdivision into two lots, le required setbacks. It lot. There »r are available, it 7:30 P.M. ■+’ -.:W r Mt f cm or oiKMid^ APrtiCATio ^rogjj---------- WPLlCAHt N»*« .^XXiki'S-lriASii— H«illn« ^ <, y\ V Mdreaa datw’rec'd f Telephone )^j.3-03^ rnorErrt OWNERS ;i^, ;i“« --- filing CA^CO Uttech mt of wore tKin one) " MOPWm U)CATIOH t^liC^e ------^ Street Addre^e ----‘ . .. _ ».r>c v.^'^ Pr\i?AftCvv V '\ {'v<V?fa3( ;^ I existing LAMO 08* NuaOter o( Tex Percelx Developsant Sl*e ■7- ^ 3^ Present Oee (ct^ck) Present lonlnq Diet. „ Acres nry I^nd Acres Net l^nd Acres Totel. ell percels Msldentleli no. of units Other (specify) - - - ---! pnOPMAL - - - - - --- - - ...» nniv (no new boildinq siteejlot line reelrenoeoent only (no i ~Z^ eu.'xUvlslon for new bulldln* sites ;;;;;;„.. ...... _l_\ new units “ totel unlts^ „o.o.rt 3.... bu.urti. >•- Binieua lot slsei *resldentiel proposed use. (ch«:k) ------ ,.p.dfy) 4. ABallcAtloe eoepUted ^.U-ln-r, put Intor —Uee oe • certllUete of ourvoy 2.1111 ud ptep*«p 0-"*^ •«!«.!«L... ■.«;•>«■; US. Co. oopt- of ru»“«o ri.^ruMi -r'r’j:;*’!.pT«-oedro>*ed to oo'k »< *** tiM o4o*o ll**- sketch plen only SlOO.o , ,„, ....... y.« •”•■« iSltuonSl leproveocnt — review fees i>«r fee ■chcdulef_ _ _ _ IVCTC DAT* APrucMrrs siciuTyps ^