Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

acre, should be considered as a 'taking' of value, and that this property should be allowed to develop under I-acre standards. Staff strongly disagrees, and would note that dozens of properties #2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan May 12, 1999 Page2 similarly rezoned in 197 5 have been developed under the current 2-acre zoning standards in the quarter century since that rezoning. Relationship to Surrounding Development The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. ( approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. It might be argued that the 1-plus acre lot sizes proposed are a reasonable transition from Long Lake's higherdensitySFRdevelopments to Orono's low-density rural area. However, Orono has a number of successful 2-acre developments adjacent to Long Lake's higher density areas, and the need for a transition is questionable at best. Lot Layout and Lot Standards The proposed lot layout is clearly intended to make use of any and all high, dry ground on the property for building purposes. For instance, the majority of proposed Lot 4, Block 2, is no more than 3-4' above creek level, and can only be accessed by constructing a driveway directly adjacent to the creek within the 75' required creek setback where no structrure or hardcover is allowed. Lot 4 clearly should not be considered for development. Lot 3 block 2 is a 3/4 acre high knob south of the creek adjacent to the Luce Line, proposed to be accessed by a 300' driveway outlot between lots 2 and 5, diagonally down a 40% slope along the north side of the creek. It would require a bridge over the creek. In order to make this driveway useful, it would have to be extended significantly along the slope adjacent to the creek. Under the 2-acre standards, this lot would not be buildable unless many variances were granted, and it certainly does not have viable septic sites. The knob nearly meets the requirements to be considered a bluff, which would complicate matters even further. Under 1-acre standards with sewer, access to the site is still the primary concern. Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6, Block 2, appear to be viable building sites under a 1-acre standard, although Losts 2 and 5 would likely need width variances. Under a 2-acre standard without sewer, perhaps only 1 additional lot besides the existing house could be developed in the area south of the main driveway, Outlot