Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, July 21, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#18 #03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR., Continued) <br /> 13. Archaeological Site Proximity or Study Needed <br /> Given the unique nature of the site in its proximity to Lake Minnetonka, the developer is advised <br /> to contact the State historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether an archaeological <br /> study is warranted. <br /> 14. Bluff Impacts <br /> The existing residence on proposed Lot 1 sits on a bluff, the slope rising 46' in a distance of 110' <br /> for an average slope of 42%. The existing house is just outside the bluff impact zone (the bluff <br /> and the first 20' above the top of bluff) but appears to not meet the 30' required setback from the <br /> top of bluff. <br /> The bluff extends into Lot 2, and further limits potential house sites within Lot 2, which is <br /> severely restricted by the back lot setback standards... <br /> In summary, Gaffron stated that the goal of this review was to provide the developer with an <br /> overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss <br /> the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. While the above comments reveal a number of <br /> issues with the proposed plat, they should provide direction to the applicants regarding the plat. <br /> During the sketch plan review, the developer should advise whether any of the issues noted <br /> present particular problems, so that those issues can be discussed and the potential for approval <br /> or denial of variances to code standards can be addressed by the Planning Commission. Planning <br /> Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to which the developer should pay <br /> special attention. <br /> Mr. Ringer indicated that his parents had purchased the home in 1970. As they are in their mid <br /> 80's, it is their intent to use the sketch plan as part of their estate planning. He explained that <br /> they wish to keep the parcel in the family and divide it into lots for their four grown children. <br /> Ringer indicated that he would likely be building on lot 2. <br /> Gaffron stated that, although the parcel would be platted for two lots now, they would plan for <br /> roadways and the expansion to 5 lots in the future. He noted that the City would like to <br /> coordinate their efforts by working with the Kingsley/Murphy sketch plans as well. Though the <br /> code does not specifically mandate ways in which to execute `ghost planning', Gaffron <br /> acknowledged that it is the City's desire to understand how the future of these parcels all fit <br /> together. <br /> Ringer stated that they were flexible on dividing the parcel into 2-5 lots. <br /> Gaffron noted that the new vacant lot created in the subdivision might be assessed a park fee; <br /> however, the remaining outlot for the other sites could be delayed those charges. <br /> PAGE 35 of 37 <br />