10-18-1999 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION m m • • • •ivtcc 1UNVJ nz.i^u \ji> rcotvu/uv. i i /, i»o m fi2?40 P.ob^rt \V*sd? - Continu^d^ The Applicant was present. Gafifron reported that the subdivision was originally reviewed as a sketch plan. The property is located in the LK-1L>1, irJL acre single tamily zoning distnct. ihe proposal is to subdivide the property into two lots, one lakeshore lot wth a single family residence and one non-lakeshore, non-riparian, with duplex. The code requires 1/2 acre. The duplex would require a conditional use permit. A duplex is allowed on the property as the property is within 200' of the B-2 Commercial District to the west. The proposal includes a 50' platted road corridor to serve these properties and three existing homes to the north as well as the garage of the home on the comer. A 30* wide outlot would serve the backlot, which requires 150% of lot area and setback standards. This requires the lakeshore lot to be 3/4 acres in size, which it is. GafiBron indicated that by crediting the 75-250' hardcover in the 250-500’ setback, the property would meet the intent of the hardcover regulation. Gaffron reviewed the lot standard requirements. He noted Lot 2 is technically a front lot. The duplex lot does not meet the area standard for being riparian, and as such, would be a factor to account for in determining whether the duplex lot could have lake access. Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex if the front lot line is defined as the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. This would eliminate the need for a variance. The side and rear yards are conforming. Gaffron noted that the code calls for no more than two residences being served via an access outlot but the plan calls for three units served by Outlot B. Gaffron indicated a solution would be to design a duplex with a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. Outlot A is being platted as a private road. Staff believes it is reasonable to require a 24' paved road be constmcted the length of Outlot A and connect from the end of the lot to the County road to the north. Lot 1 meets the requirements for a backlot as noted in the information packet on page 2. Gaffron said Hennepin County Public Works has suggested in their comments that a triangular piece of right-of-way be dedicated to deal with the slope and sight distance concern along North Shore Drive. This presents a problem because dedicated right-of- way is subtracted from the calculation of lot area. The result would be a lot less than the required 1/2 acre and necessitate a variance. Gaffron reported that a grading and drainage plan has not yet been submitted. He also noted that the MCWD suggests a payment towards ponding in lieu of constructing a pond on the property. The City Engineer, however, suggests a pond be constmcted. If this occurs, the lakeshore lot would then be less than the required 3/4 acres. in•