04-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WfCEJVEO m 9 ClTYOf-0«o^ Mofidiy M*rch 8,2004 To: City of Orono Planning Commiwion Mcnibas 27S0 Kell^ Parlcway. P O.Box 66 CiyatalBay.MN.SS323 From: Robot Ftoyd 960 West Femdale Road Wayzau. MN. 5S19I Dear Planning Cocnmiaaion Memben, My fiunily and I received notice of two variance requests for the 1070 Waal Fcmdale Road pro|)oty. variance requests number 04-2995 and 04^96* TTiia iKoperty is just one property west of our home. I visited the City offices and discussed both of these willi Mr. CJaffron in deUil. I am writing to pmviefe soma detailed comments and thoughts on these requests. Variance number 04^2996 is very simple and obvious. In more than twenty ycam of living here. I have never seen any public use of this right of way eaacmrjit on the 1070 property. The currently existing and very narrow private driveway to 1070 is the only use that has ever been made of this right of way, which waa apparently created a very long time ago before the current single property use was established. It serves no public purpose to continue this right of way which could only possibly be used to access the entirely private surrounding 1070 property. The terrain makes any other use illogical and impoasible. Aa nearby property owners, we favor the pernianenl vacation of that existing right of way aumiunded by the 1070 property. The public has not and dona not receive any uae oC or value from that small, unuaed. undeveloped, tnd purposeless right of way. The underlying land will be much bcaer used simply as part of the 1070 property. Variance number 04 299S ia more complex. The goal of the current two acre minimum of dry iind is admirable on the surface, but is not actually what it aerms. There are only two or three propeitiei (90S and 960) at roost on West Fanidale Road, within the City of Orono limits, which can potaibly currently meet this requirement All of the remaining properties are on less than two acres of dry land, in many cases far iess than two acres of dry land. 1 asked Mr. Gaffron why the City persists with a two acre minimum when the overwhelming majority of properties obviously fail to meet this requirement Especially when you exanilne the adjoining neighborhoods of Shoreline Drive, Orimo Lane, the Dickenson area, Orono Orchard Road, and much of the area surrounding the Woodhill club property. Even crossing into the Wayzaia portion of West Fcmdale Road to the east of the Orono City limit, the nauby properites are overwhelmingly much smaller than two acres of dry land per home. The axle's two acre minimum requirement is of very dubious value or legitimacy under these circumstances, 'fhe appropriate regulatory sit^iation should be a set of codes which carefully reflect reality, acknowledge the actual development and density already in place, and enables fiir use, development and propeity values for all property owners equally. 1 beleive the owners of the 1070 property should oot be requirr d to fulfill the unrealistic and unreasonable two acres of dry land minimum lot • ize. Die 1070 property is apparently lr.as than this two acres of dry ground, la it possible and permissable to alter the existing property by adding fill below the 929.4 level to create additional dry grouixl above tik required 929.4 elevation? What would be involved to accomplish this? Exactly what environmental, public, or private good would actually be served or provided by such filliog of the lower property? Is this goal really worth the har^hip on the ownen of 1070 and the disruption of the environment? At what point should such filling be limited if it is allowed? One acic? Two?.... If this filling is not allowed, then how can the 1070 owners possibly be expected to provide the additional dry land to fulfill the two acre minimum icquiremcni? None of the adjoliilng properties are currently being offered for sale. Even if any adjoining property was currcr.tly for sale, none of them have any excess dry land available (beyond satisfying their own seperatc two acre minimum lot size). None of the contiguous propertie.s even achieves a single two acres of dry land minimum lot size cunrntly Redrawing boundaries will not provide the required two acres. So how could the 1070 owners possibly be expected to fulfill this requirement? Would the City even really be seeking any actual fulfillment of these p.i