|
Zoning File #1764
<br />September 18, 1992
<br />Page 2
<br />3.
<br />4.
<br />.... ~ ', /',f ,.,~
<br />6.
<br />7.
<br />8.
<br />writing) and the flood plain elevation (established at elevation 931.5
<br />based on the culvert contiguity with Stubbs Bay). If the floodway is
<br />defined at an elevation near 930.0 or higher, the flood fringe credit
<br />may not be available.
<br />Under the assumption that enough flood fringe area is available to
<br />meet the 2 acre lot area requirement, the proposed lot boundaries
<br />allow for adequate area and width for this to be a legitimate building
<br />site, although it at first viewing would be perceived as relatively
<br />low land. There is a likely buildable envelope approximately 120'
<br />deep and 130' wide. One other unresolved concern is, if the 929.4
<br />contour continues from Stubbs Bay through the culvert and up the
<br />creek, whether a 75' setback must be required. If so, this would
<br />reduce the building envelope width to perhaps 115', still leaving
<br />substantial area to develop a residence.
<br />The property abuts municipal sewer, and is within the MUSA boundary as
<br />recently amended. Only one sewer unit was assessed to the property,
<br />intending to serve Lot 1. A stub can easily be provided to serve Lot
<br />2. A.JD Tl:'.' : <;e'c.o,•.)\... _c>: , ; , 'i, · ,,--· l,c..,C)'_I l.~ 'L ~~ L. ,r r:?J.L L Pl':.' Cf<; r _) ~ ~-
<br />' / ' , _.,' ; • ~ • .' .n :, ',-i --(,-,,, / • .,: --, ;' • .,: • l :: / _j ,.__r,-~-/ • • ~-/~ J_ ', l. ·-• I ' •-
<br />\/'City policy is to collect the second sewer unit at the time a building
<br />I permit is issued for the second residence on the property, regardless
<br />' of which lot the second house .i_s bui 1 t on. (/J 2-;.c: .:___ ,-7 '::> l----:-:-' , •r n----:·, _
<br />L_.l>o (:.:. :·1 i-, ;:_ : l~/· it_.:_ ,:::,,,,...,_.... r t.i.-·-J , . , :. . )
<br />The Orono Park Commission has requested that, in addition to the
<br />standard park dedication fee, a 10' bike trail easement be granted
<br />over the 10' drainage and utility easement adjacent to Bayside Road.
<br />The park fee would be adjusted to compensate for the easement.
<br />A copy of the proposed plat has been forward to Hennepin County
<br />Department of Transportation for review of a driveway location for Lot
<br />2. We have no response as of this writing. The City Engineer notes a
<br />potential concern on driveway location and sight distance, hence any
<br />recommendation for approva 1 must be contingent on driveway location
<br />approval from Hennepin County.
<br />The City has requested an easement through Lot 1 for municipal sewer
<br />lines extending northwestward to serve the house at -~85 Landmark
<br />Drive. The originally proposed easement location was down the old
<br />driveway corridor through the center of the lot. Applicant has
<br />discussed with Public Works a re location of that easement to reduce
<br />the impact on Lot l's building site.
<br />Since Bayside Road is considered a scenic parkway but not an arterial
<br />road within the Comprehensive Plan, there is no requirement that
<br />access to Lot 2 be provided by an interior roadway system.
|