04-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

finCEiVEO «!•( 9 m CI^^OhOROfio Monday March 8,2004 To: City of Orooo Planning Commisskm Mcmbeni 2750 Kalley Pferkway, P.OBox 66 Cryital Bay, MN. 55321 From: Robert Floyd 960 West Fcmdale Road Way»ta.MN. 55391 Dear Planning CocnmUslon Members, My family and 1 received notice of two variance requests for ihe 1070 West Femdale Road property, variance requests number 04-2995 and 042996. Tliis property is just one property west of our home. I visited the City offices and discussed both of these with Mr. CialTron in detail. I am wnling to provide some detailed comments and ihoiighLs on these requests. ~ Variance number 04-2996 ia very simple and obvious. In more than twenty years of living here, I have never seen any public use of this right of way eesemeat on the 1070 projKity. The curr^y existing and very narrow private driveway to 1070 is the only use that has ever been made of this right of way, which %ras apparently created a very long time ago before the current tingle propefty uie was esUblished. It serves no public purpose tc continue this right of way which could only possibly be used to access the entirely private surrounding 1070 property. Ihc terrain makes any other use illogical and impossible. As nearby propcfty owners, we favor the petmanent vseation of ihst existing right of way surrounded by the 1070 pa>pcrty. The public has not and doea not receive any use of, or value from that aiiiall, unused, undevclop^ ttid purposeless right of way. 'Ihe underlying land will be much better used simply as port of the 1070 property. Variance number 04 2995 is more complex ITic goal of the current two acre minimum of dry land is admirable on the surface, but is not actually what it seems There are only two or tlirce properties (905 and 960) at most on West Fcmdale Road, wittiiii the City of Oruno limits, which can possibly currently J meet this requirement All of the remaining properties are on less than two acres of dry land, in many cases far less than two acres of dry land. I asked Mr. OafTron why the City persists with a two acre minimum when the overwhelming majority of properties obviously fail to meet this requironent Especially when you examine the adjoining neighborhoods of Shoreline Drive, OroK) Lane, the Dickenson area, Orono Orchard Road, and much of the area surrounding the Woodhill club property. Even crossing into the Wayzata portion of West Femdale Road to the east of the Orono City limit, the nearby properites are overwhelmingly much smaller than two acres of dry land per home. The code's two acre minimum requirement is of very dubious value or legitimacy under these circumstances. The appropriate regulatory situation should be a set of codes which carefully reflect reality, acknowledge the actual development and density already in place, and enables fair use. development and property values for all property owners equally. 1 beleive the owners of the 1070 property should not be required to fulfill the unrealistic and unreasonable two acres of dry land minimum lot size. The 1070 property ia apparently less than this two acres of dry ground. Is it possible and permissahle to alter the existing property by adding fill below the 929.4 level to create additional dry ground above the 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 filling of the lower property? Is this goal really worth the hardship on the ownere of 1070 and tlie disruption of the environment? At what point sluxild such filling be limited if it is allowodV One acre? Two?.... Ifthis filling is not allowed, then how can the 1 070 owners possibly be expected to provide the additional dry land to fulfill the two acre minimum requirement? None of the adjoining properties arc cuncnily being offered for sale. Even if any adjoining property was currently for sale, none of them have any exrcss dry land available (^yond satisfying their own seperate two acre minimum lot sire). None of the contiguous properties even achieves a single fwo acres of dry land minimum lot ii7e airrently Redrawing boundaries will not provide the required two acres. So how could the 1070 owners possibly be expected to hilfill this requirement? Would the City even really be seeking any actual fulfillment of these p.i