03-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 2 below the 931.5' floodplain elevation. There are no apparent wetlands on the property. The site is fairly open, with some woci^d area along the west side near the house. The surrounding neighborhood contains single family residences on lots of similar area and width as those proposed. 'I he creation of two additional single family building sites as proposed would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and generally would appear to meet the LR-IC zoning district standards. Se.w£L The property was provided with three sewer stubs and fully assessed for sewer in 1963. Subdivision to crc?>te two additional building sites will not require any further sewer connection assessments or charges, other than the standard permit fee and sewer availability (SAC) charge when each new home is constructed. This area of the City does not have City water available, hence private wells will be used. A&fiSSS.^ The site gains access from Tonkawa Road, which is a County Road. Any upgrade of the driveway to serve tw-o additional homes will require review by Hennepin County Department of Public Works. Tonkawa Road contains 66' of right-of-way, which is the correct width for its "scenic parkway" collector status as indicated in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Tonkawa Road is not included in either the City of Orono or Hennepin County bike/hike trail plans, and there appears to be no indicated need for dedication of additional County Road right-of-way. Lot layout and access to the County Road are the two most significant issues for discussion. The applicant has provided three potential layouts which will be reviewed as to their merits, in order of applicant's highest preference to lowest preference. Proposal A: Three Rectangular Lots with 30' Outlot Access Drive I his proposal results in the most uniform lot layout, with three lots ranging from 0.59 to 0.73 acres. Each lot meets the 100' minimum width standard as well as the 0.5 acre LR-IC minimum lot size requirement. Howe\er, the westerly two lots would be considered as "back lots" when only accessed via a 30’ corridor, and therefore would technically be required to meet 150% of the lot area and side/tront setback standards, which would not be met by this proposal; i.e. back lot area variances would be needed for Lots 1 and 2, and side setbacks would be raised to 15', somewhat limiting the flexibility for house construction. Proposal B: Modified Plan With Lots 2 3 Abutting Tonkawa In order to address the problem of creating two back lots, applicant has devised a modified layout which has both Lots 2 and 3 abutting the County Road, with Lot 1 therefore becoming a back lot whici. meets the 0.75 acre standard. Lots 2 and 3, by virtue of being lakeshore lots, only have to meet the 100' width standard at the lakeshore and at the 75' setback, but are not required to meet it