04-20-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 5 4. This group of four properties previously contained a total of three residences and was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1963-64. No additional connection charges are required. The property has three SAC units credited from demolition of the pre-existing homes, hence no SAC charges will be required. Existing sewer stubs are available to serve all three proposed units. The site will be served with private wells. The Orono Trail System Plan includes a corridor along North Shore Drive. The Park Commission reviewed this plat on Februar>' 2 and recommended a cash dedication, noting that it appears sufficient right-of-way exists for any future trails along the County Road. Regarding the need for additional right-of-way for the County Road, Hennepin County comments have yet to be received. Riparian Access Issue Lot 1 abuts the lakeshore, with approximately 124' of shoreline. Lot 2 does not abut the lakeshore. Under the City's code standards, only Lot 1 may have lake access. The applicant initially requested that the City consider whether the duplexe units on Lot 2 might gain access to the lake, via a joint use dock, an easement, or some other method. The City has a long history of denying such access for lots which do not abut the lake. In fact, the ordinances disallow subdivisions to create lakeshore lots which have less than the required width at the shoreline. Therefore, creation of an access corridor along one side of Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2 would not be allowed, regardless whether such access was via an extended leg of Lot 1, an outlot, or an easement. The classic case of this is the "Chapman Addition" on Shadywood Road near the Narrows, where a front lot/ back lot subdivision was created in the early 1980's. The City represented to the applicants during the subdivision process that the non-lakeshore lot would not have lake access, and then the property owner a few years later created an easement for the non-riparian lot to gain lake access. When the City eventually learned of this during a sale of the non-lakeshore lot, the City sued to have the easement declared invalid, but lost, because the court found there was inadequate documentation to prove that the easement was not valid, but did not get into the issue of whether it was in conformity with Orono's ordinances. The Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (B) 2, specifically states: "the number of inland non-riparian lots which may gain access via (an) outlot shall not exceed the number obtained by dividing the outlot width measured at the shoreline by the required lot width, rounding down to the nearest whole number." If an outlot intending to create an access corridor to the lake was platted at a width of 20', 20' divided by 100' rounded down, still equals zero, i.e. no non-riparian lots could gain access. And, the width of such an outlot could be no more then 24' while still allowing the lakeshore riparian lot to meet the