Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />January 17, 2023 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Mr. Erickson said he had done a site visit with Mr. Edwards. The smaller southern parcel is completely <br />disconnected with the northern parcel. There's absolutely no way to access or utilize the northern parcel in <br />any way, shape or form. It's just two parcels and the smaller one is non -conforming, but it's been in use, <br />so it's lawful, and the larger one is conforming consistent with the upcoming changes to the <br />comprehensive plan. <br />Mr. Edwards said the curb cut out exists on the northern portion on County Road 15. It straddles the two <br />lots and when that was put in back in the 50s or 60s it was with the future use of splitting these lots off. <br />Mr. Erickson said they've been in discussions with the adjacent landowner and have absolutely no <br />objection to the adjacent landowner's plan, and to working with them to do something that's acceptable if <br />that's what's necessary in order to move the potential subdivision forward. <br />Mr. Edwards pointed out the wetlands area is not actually holding standing water. It's a peat bog. <br />McCutcheon asked if given the wetland, the lot is buildable. <br />Mr. Edwards said their plan would be if there was a single-family residence it would be between the <br />wetlands and County Road 15. There is over a half -acre of buildable land that is not wetlands, according <br />to our survey, <br />McCutcheon also asked about a grading plan. <br />Mr. Erickson said according to the staff recommendation, there would need to be some sort of grading to <br />get a flatter view of the cross street for safety purposes. <br />McCutcheon said there was no public hearing tonight and asked the commissioners for discussion. He <br />pointed out there would be a non -conforming lot and as a commission, we just said we're not in favor of <br />that. <br />Libby said from a historical perspective these were considered and were platted as two lots a long time <br />ago. It's a very pretty setting. I honestly think that the highest and best use of this would be the divisions <br />that I've seen proposed by the two applicants, I would support that. I know that it doesn't really <br />necessarily conform to the second lot size status that we would like to see. But again, that's that <br />uniqueness. I think we need to look at this as a very unique and unusual circumstance and that we just <br />need to be as open-minded as we statutorily can be to the applicant's desires for the highest and best use <br />of the land. <br />Erickson said the proposal fits the character of the neighborhood. As we have seen in other locations, like <br />Forest Lake and other places, it makes sense to have the lot line even extended into the water, because <br />there are those times when the lake will be low again. In `92, it was down about three feet from the <br />ordinary high water, and then the 1930s, it was down about seven feet below the ordinary high water. <br />Hennepin County's first choice for access to the northern part would be an easement going eastward to <br />County 19, which does not have the huge traffic numbers that County 15 has. So that would be an ideal <br />Page 9 of 13 <br />