Resolution 1247 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• �p l Cit� of ORONO �� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. 1247 2 . Three other proposed subdivision layouts have been reviewed in the record of this application: a) The original layout proposed with the application, Exhibit B dated 3-26-76 , had a proposed dividing line closer to the south than does the final plan. This line was moved north per Exhibit A after the Planning Commission requested at least 1 . 0 acres of land in lot 2 , exclusive of all driveway easements . b) A third plan, Exhibit C dated 9-29-80 , proposed dividing Lot 9 such that both lots would have frontage on Lake Minnetonka and on the cul-de-sac of West Lafayette Road. This plan was with- drawn by the applicant after the Planning Commission found that neither proposed lot conformed to minimum required lot width at the shoreline , and that proposed lot 2 had insufficient lot width at all locations . • c) A fourth plan was verbally discussed but never formally presented on a survey. This plan would have been similar to Exhibit A except that proposed lot 2 would have included a 20 or 30 foot wide panhandle extending along the west side of lot 1 to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. This proposal was never formally submitted because both the Planning Commission and the Council indicated that such a panhandle would have required approval of a lot width variance at the shoreline, which variance would have been denied as being contrary to the City' s established zoning performance standards for shoreland lots , contrary to the City' s boat density and riparian land policies , contrary to the City ' s comprehensive plan, and contrary to the rQinnesota Department of Natural Resources ' Minimum Shore- land Management F.egulations for lakeshore lot width. The City of Orono will not consider transferring riparian rights from riparian lots to building sites which are not fully conform- ing with all direct lakeshore frontage requirements of the zoning code. 3 . At the regular Council meeting of January 26 , 1981 , Hepp' s attorney Franz Jevne specifically for the record agreed that Exhibit A was the current subdivision layout and that all other layouts or plans which may have been discussed during this application should be considered to have • been formally withdrawn by the ap�licant. PAGE 2 OF 11