Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF ORONO <br />P.O. Bo\ 66 <br />Cr\3tal Bav. MN 55323 <br />473-7357 <br />ZONING FILE #1800 <br />NOTICE OFPLA-NNING COMMISSION <br />ACTION <br />DATE OF NOTICE: Apnl 5, 1995 <br />TO:Michael Plank <br />P.O. Bo.x 777 <br />Buffalo. WY 82S34 <br />COPIES:Mark Gronberg <br />Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. <br />4S2 Tamarack Avenue <br />Long Lake. MX 5535b <br />TYPE OF .APPLICATION* Subdivision (Sketch Plan) <br />D.ATE OF MEETING: 03/20/95 VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST <br />NOTES ANT> SPECIAL CONDITIO.NS: <br />The Planning Commission did not discuss this application. However, their posWon on <br />a pnor applicatS;; at the same meeting appears to provide some ot the dtreetton we were looking <br />for. <br />Specifically , in the case of previously combined lots proposed to be uncombincd to create <br />the orieiLl individual lots. Planning Commission agreed that the resuitent <br />to the "back lot" standards. The similarity to your lot line rearrangemeni is that both are metes <br />“ni Ln^ ibdi “siL subjec. to subdivision requirements. It ctm be argued .hauhe pr« ss <br />Of subdivision automatically creates a new lot subject to all new lot standards even when <br />merclv a lot line reamingciiieiit. <br />In vour case, it appears that the rearrangement of the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 <br />creates two new lots and dhe portion of Lot 3 containing the existing house is considered a back <br />m ^“7 5 ^res gross'area m the 5 acre zone. Jeanne and I agr« |hat U« way to avojd <br />the back lot issue is to plat a road/cul-de-sac outlot now. Per Mark s future plat sketch. <br />Parcel B is created as a separate 6.16 acre lot that needs a width variance, leaving Parcel A as <br />I platted lot which might be divided in the fumre (requiring a future lot width variance <br />measured at the 1(X)’ setback from the cul-de-sac). <br />Because we don't know how Highway 12 planning wUI ultimately affect Watertown <br />Road if in the future you do spiit Parcel A. at that time the City would determine whether ^ <br />old farmstead will have to relocate its driveway to the toad outlot. If so, you could ■ <br />expect to have to build a road and a cul-de-sac in the road outlot. If not. you could at that t me <br />propose to use merely a shared driveway for the two back lots. <br />Expanding the existing 30’ outlot will require that this subdivision be formatted as ajM <br />rather than as a lot line rearrangement. My recommendation therefore is that “ <br />[ plat, and if you m'eet the Apnl 21 deadline for the May 15 Planmng Commission <br />meeting, we may be able to get it completed by imd-sumraer. <br />Please call Mike Gaffron at 473-7357 if you have questions on any of the above.