04-19-2010 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

" - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , Monday,March 19,2007 � . 6:40 o'cIock p.m. , . (#07-3271 Judson Dayton,Continued) As proposed,Lots 1,3 and 4 do not meet these standazds. If OutIots A and B were increased ta 50 feet minimum width,it might be reasonable to consider that fhese three lots abut an acceptable private road. It may be worth of discussion as to whether merely creating the confomung private road corridor,but not building the road,would be su.fficient to eliminate the back Iot issue. An area of concern is where Outlot A goes past the horse bai�n. In 2006,Hermepin County Transportation Department indicated that this tsroperiy should be limited to one access onto County Road 84. The fact that this property is being subdieided triggers review by the County,and although iwo driveways ex'rst,the county may have the right to Iimit their increased use for additional]ots. � Orono's Comprehensive Tra.il System PIan indioates that a trail easement from the Luce Line Trail to Norenberg Park along Old Crystal Bay Road is planned for the future. Whether this hail will go an the east side or the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road has not been determined. Other than a trail easement, � no other park needs are identified in this area,and the property would be subject to the standard park fee for two or three new lots,giving credit for ttie existing horne on proposed Lot 2. Hennepin County has requested an additiona117 feet ofright-of-way along Old Crystal Bay Road for, among other�ses,trail purposes. The City Council will be asked#o consider whether a irail easement and/or expansion of right-of-way along the east boundary of the property are required. The City Engineer has suggested that the standard dra.inage and u�ility easements wi11 be i•equired along � all lot lines,and the appropriate easemenfs be provided over alI wetlands and drainageways. Staff would e�.•pect a more thorough drainage review will ultimately be required,and potentially the need for ce�tam stormwater management systems. The property will be subject to the standard storm water and drainage h•unk fee. . The property is within flie MUSA but does not have rnunicipal sewer directly available a#this time. A sewer force main serving the adjacent Farview neighborhood is expected to be consfructed in 2007 and will be Iocated in the•OCB road right-of-way at the east end of the property. It would be the City's � preference that filiese new Iots are provided with inunicipal seu�er. There is the potential that the Metropolitan Council may not look kindly at providing sewer service to low density areas of less than three units per acre, In the event that the developer caunot connect to municipal sewer,each new lot must demonstrate the capability for two 5-bedroom capacity septic systems. Gaffron stated hardcover is not e�cpected to be an issue for the proposed Iots as each lot is allowed � approximately 7,500 square feet o£hardcover allowance in the 75-250 foot zone. Structural lot coverage limits do not apply,as eaah lot exceeds two aeres. . Average lakeshore setback has the potential to become an issue for Lots I,3,and 4. The existing home on Lot 2 is about 175 feet from the lake. The existing Iakeshore residence in Little Orchard directiy east of Lot 4 is also about 175 feet from the shore. It follows that the homes on Lots 3 and 4 should also be 175 feet from the shore. This requirement could be established as part of the subdivision approvals, which would avoid concerns about floating average setbacks. The average setback for Lot 1 would be PAGE 33