Laserfiche WebLink
s , <br /> - Melanie Curtis <br /> From: Melanie Curtis <br /> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:26 AM <br /> To: 'Mark' <br /> Subject: Follow Up - Several <br /> Attachments: admin@ci.orono.mn.us_20120131_105828.pdf <br /> Good morning Mark-I hope I can get caught up on follow up I owe you on a few properties with one email. If I miss <br /> something please let me know. We can discuss any of these further if you would like. <br /> -Melanie <br /> Subdivision at <br /> The 3 lot configuration we looked at a couple weeks ago appears to result in a 30'wide access outlot for a private drive <br /> for 2 lots and one lot accessing off of North Arm. It appears to be creating a situation with 2 back lots, which is not <br /> permitted (Remember the Dayton plat? Not exactly the same situation but basic premise...). While the two lakeshore lots <br /> would technically meet the dimensional requirements for new lots neither would have frontage on North Arm. Without <br /> frontage on North Arm one would have to be created as a back lot(with back lot dimensional standards) or all would <br /> have to access off of a 50'wide private road outlot with culdesac. Without a private road for all three lots I think the <br /> property owner should focus on a 2 lot subdivision. <br /> StavigBluff: ��'I-ll�'-Z�j- llU� f>� /�j] �y-�W� � �f <br /> I understand you spoke with Mike yesterday briefly about the bluff analysis. Mike's analysis appears to agree with your <br /> analysis in at least the location of the top of bluff for the central portion of the lot. Thank you for humoring us on that as <br /> we are pretty cautious regarding bluff calculations etc... I think going forward we can use the analysis you've provided. <br /> Having said that and as I indicated in our meeting, I am still hesitant to be too supportive of setback variances from the <br /> 30' bluff setback and 50'street/rear setback for development of the property. I would be really unlikely to support any <br /> bluff setback variance. Based on the building pad the property owner is hoping to market, a very substandard street/rear <br /> yard setback would be necessary. I know the street is a very narrow and does not have a formal culdesac, but I don't <br /> think there will be overwhelming staff support for much of a rear setback variance either considering most of the <br /> neighborhood is more conforming and it would be out of character to encroach that close to the"street". <br /> ��L rearranqement/subdivision: <br /> One question that isn't clear for me.... Does the owner of the����intend to build anything on the portion of <br /> Outlot A they plan to acquire? <br /> The way we see it is that because Outlot A is by definition an outlot it cannot be developed without subdividing it to make <br /> it buildable. Our preference would be to replat the entire property as described below in #1 (and maybe my attached <br /> drawing will help explain). <br /> 1. The cleanest way is to replat the entire property (both Outlot A an�into a new Outlot and ne� <br /> �bt• <br /> 2. The next potential would be to replat Outlot A into one new outlot and one new Lot to be combined with� <br /> �with ONE deed &special lot combination agreement. <br /> 3. And then there is the least desirable method... A simple lot line rearrangement to break off new outlot from <br /> Outlot A but this does not chan e the non-buildable status of either outlot.... The description would be <br /> something like��Existing escription plus part of Outlot A described as---�� <br /> Melanie Curtis <br /> Planning &Zoning Coordinator <br /> City of Orono <br /> 2750 Kelley Parkway <br /> Orono, MN 55356 <br /> 1 <br />