11-03-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982 men 9. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED: --Novak - asked if the hearing was just to consider the subdivision. --Whittaker - yes, but they have also requested variances and a Shoreland Permit. City has not had the 10 days required to review the revised plan - no response is available from the Engineer or the DNR on the new plan. --Pat Sinclair - the City has had more than 10 days on a.11 aspects of the application. Brought the items to the Building Inspectors office October 3. --Whittaker - information was not sufficient. Administrator wrote a letter October 5 indicating what additional information was requred. The additional information is on the revised plan presented to the Council November. 3. Cannot consider a Shoreland Permit without a detailed site plan of the sewer system showing the two drai.nfields. This plan has to go to the DN.R 10 days before it is considered by the City Council. Previous plan just indicated a drainfield area. --Pat Sinclair - no.comment-was made --on the previous plan that was submitted. After the plan was submitted -to the Planning Commission, -:no comment -was made other than it was brought up at the Planning Commission meetingq Then submitted another detailed plan and yesterday (November 2) found out that that plan did not meet specs. --Whittaker - the plan the Planning Commission asked for, which was also asked for October 5, was submitted to the City Oct. 27. This went to the Engineer Oct. 27 and was reviewed by the Engineer. This pl.ar.is now changed and would have to give the DNR 10 days to review the final -detailed site plan with a list of all the known variances. In answer to Novaks question - are considering the subdivision, but the applicants are asking that the Shoreland Permit and variances be considered. --Novak,- asked what the frontage is at the street. --Sinclair - asking for 5' variance at the street. The Orchard lot would still have 200' of frontage. Also need a variance from the Ordinary High Water :setback,,for=a deck. --Fraser - should resolve the subdivision before considering the variances and. Shoreland Permit. --Whittaker - if the Council agreed that a one acre lot would be satisfactory, could the: property be subdivided so that each lot would contain 1 acre. --Dave Spencer - would be interferring with existing improvements on the Orchard homestead - this is not the way this property was developed, --Whittaker - would -using existing plat lines,as houndary lines-interfe with Orchard's use of the property? --Dave Spencer - the historic dividing line between the homestead and the proposed lot is the easterly line as proposed. Not too far from the existing home. Line would be too close to the Orchard home by equalizing the property.- --Whittaker - why not go on existing plat lines,.not tax Parcel lines, thereby 'creatinq':2-1A_lotsand meeting the frontage requirement on a public street. ( --Dave Spencer - have a fence with a driveway, would start to interfer with existing improvements. By trying to create two IA lots, may create a lot line within 5-10,.ft, of -.the house. Not willing to amend the application to do this.