property info - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, � Melanie Curtis From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:26 AM To: 'Mark' Subject: Follow Up- Several Attachments: admin@ci.orono.mn.us_20120131_105828.pdf 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 something please let me know. We can discuss any of these further if you would like. -Melanie Subdivision a Drive: The 3 lot configuration we looked at a couple weeks ago appears to result in a 30'wide access outlot for a private drive 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 permitted (Remember the Dayton plat? Not exactly the same situation but basic premise...). While the two lakeshore lots would technically meet the dimensional requirements for new lots neither would have frontage on North Arm. Without frontage on North Arm one would have to be created as a back lot (with back lot dimensional standards) or all would have to access off of a 50'wide private road outlot with culdesac. Without a private road for all three lots I think the property owner should focus on a 2 lot subdivision. � Bluff: I understand you spoke with Mike yesterday briefly about the bluff analysis. Mike's analysis appears to agree with your 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 we are pretty cautious regarding bluff calculations etc... I think going forward we can use the analysis you've provided. Having said that and as I indicated in our meeting, I am still hesitant to be too supportive of setback variances from the 30' bluff setback and 50'street/rear setback for development of the property. I would be really unlikely to support any bluff setback variance. Based on the building pad the property owner is hoping to market, a very substandard street/rear yard setback would be necessary. I know the street is a very narrow and does not have a formal culdesac, but I don't think there will be overwhelming staff support for much of a rear setback variance either considering most of the neighborhood is more conforming and it would be out of character to encroach that close to the��street". MacMillan LL rearran4ement/subdivision: One question that isn't clear for me.... Does the owner of e 1700 Fox pro erty intend to bui/danything on the portion of Outlot A they plan to acquire? The way we see it is that because Outlot A is by definition an outlot it cannot be developed without subdividing it to make it buildable. Our preference would be to replat the entire property as described below in #1 (and maybe my attached drawing will help explain). 1. The cleanest way is to replat the entire property (both Outlot A and 1700 Fox) into a new Outlot and new 1700 Fox Street lot. 2. The next potential would be to replat Outlot A into one new outlot and one new Lot to be combined with 1700 Fox street with ONE deed &special lot combination agreement. 3. And then there is the least desirable method... A simple lot line rearrangement to break off new outlot from Outlot A but this does not change the non-buildable status of either outlot.... The description would be something like'�Existing 1700 Fox Street description plus part of Outlot A described as---�� Melanie Curtis Planning &Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 1