10-12-2015 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 12, 2015 7:00 o'clock p.m. 6. #15-373913786 BPS PROPERTIES, LLC, 300 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH — FINAL PLAT, RESOLUTION NO. 6548 (continued) Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6548 , a Resolution Granting Final Plat Approval for Subdivision of the Property Located at 300 Sixth Avenue North to be known as Mooney Lake Preserve, subject to Option A, which would need to be completed prior to a permit being issued on the project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. #15-3761 RIDGE CREEK CUSTOM HOMES, 4775 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, RIGHT- OF-WAY VACATION — RESOLUTION NO. 6549 Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6549, a Resolution Vacating a Dedicated Right -of -Way Within the Plat of Bergquist's and Wicklund's Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, for the property located at 4775 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8. #15-3770 JON NORRIS AND CATHERINE MORRISON AND PATRICK AND MELISSA MULHERN, 460 ORCHARD PARK ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT Gaffron stated this is a proposed subdivision to split the existing property into two building lots that would be served by a shared driveway. Both lots would be served by private wells and septic. The property consists of a single 23 -acre parcel with a home, detached garage, and a number of other accessory structures. The applicant is proposing two lots, which are very irregular in shape due to the odd property shape, the location of wetlands, and in order to contain sufficient dry buildable acreage within each lot while establishing desirable home sites and incorporating suitable sites for onsite sewage treatment systems. Gaffron noted there is a fairly large wetland on the property. The revised preliminary plat drawing depicts potential locations for proposed pole barns on each lot. In both cases, the proposed barns would be located nearer to Orchard Park Road than the residence structure, which would require a variance to the zoning code provisions that do not allow accessory structures nearer the road than the principal structure. The Council should discuss whether those variances are supported for each lot. Access to both lots is via a shared 20 -foot driveway in Outlot B, branching off to two individual driveways at a width of approximately 12 feet. The corridor created by Outlot B at 90 feet in width is extremely wide as compared to the typical 30-50 foot outlot for a shared driveway. It appears that the extra width is necessary to accommodate the topography and wetlands and allow for a somewhat curvilinear driveway without creating a more complex outlot configuration and description. The northerly driveway branch for Lot 1 appears to be the only viable location for a driveway. In addition to the wetland impacts noted above, this driveway will require a variance to the City's 5 -foot lot line setback to driveway requirement and needs to provide for the appropriate floodplain and drainage management facilities. One of the issues Staff discussed with the applicants is that the neighboring lot is so small that it may require additional land. The current applicants are suggesting that there could be an area they would be willing to turn into an outlot to make it possible for the neighbor to acquire. Gaffron stated it then becomes a matter of the cost and whether the neighbors would like to acquire that land. Gaffron noted this applicant does not have an obligation to provide access to that lot. Page 8 of 37