10-17-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Jttdson D�yton September 14, 2005 Page 3 6. Development Fees (in addition to application fees)required to be paid to the City at the time of subdivision would include the following: a) Park Dedication. The Park Dedication requirement is 8% of the laud or a fee that caps out at$5,550 per new dwelling unit. Assuming the existing house on proposed lot 7 remains, the subdivision would pay the park fee for 9 lots (9 x $5,550 = $49,950). There is also a potential that the City would require dedication of a trail easement along Old Crystal Bay Road, as the City intends to eventually coinplete the trail connection froin the Luce Line to Norenberg Park. b) Storm Water& Drainage Trunk Fee at a rate of$2,770 per acre for the entire development acreage. Total property area per Hennepin County ta� records is approximately 26.5 acres (26.5 x $2,770 = $73,405). c) Sewer Coiuiection Charge. It has not been determined whether there would be a Sewer Conection Charge (typically based on the original unit costs of the existing sewer system into which the new development will be coimected). The proposed 10-lot development as laid out is somewhat ambitious, and I would not be surprised if after all developinent parameters are taken into consideration, something less than l O lots is the result. However, within the scope of this review, 10 lots might be feasible. Two-Lot Option. You also provided a secondary layout which would leave the bulk of the property in a 21-acre single large parcel,plus a secoild parcel of about 5 acres resulting from combiiiation and lot line rearrangement in the area of your two southerly tax parcels (09-117-23 21 0004 and 0005). It is unknown whether these tax parcels are legally accessed from Old Crystal Bay Road via an existing easement. If not,the creation of such an easement technically requires a subdivision process per Orono ordinances. If such an easement exists, it likely does not reflect the proposed legal description of the combined new 5-acre parcel as depicted, hence this results in the need for revising the easement which would require subdivision approval. Further, the 5-acre parcel is considered as a back lot, and reconfiguration of existing tax parcel boundaries would trigger the need to create a forma130'-wide outlot corridor for access, in order to be in compliance with the zoning standards. My conclusion is that your two-lot proposal would have to be a plat subdivision, and could not be handled administratively.