2015-00388-voided/withdrawn - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This particular house design is wrong for the lot. Willi Abbott proposed to create small homes, and a majority of the examples he provided in gaining Council approval were 1-1/2 stories. No discussion or analysis was done during the subdivision review to determine whether the lower levels would qualify as basements or stories. As a rule we do not speculate on what shape/size/location/style of house will fit a given lot, and those are factors that a builder and designer must deal with on a lot-by-lot basis. I do not believe the Council would look favorably on bringing this plat back to them for revisions to the grading plan. They have already denied a request by Abbott to exchange lot coverage allowances between two lots. I would not support an exception to the building height requirements for this project. The same rule applies to every new subdivision and every new house in Orono. We can discuss the options for redesigning the house to fit the lot parameters. Mike Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planner City of Orono (Street Address)2750 Kelley Parkway (Mailing Address) P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay , MN 55323 Phone: (952) 249-4622 Fax: (952) 249-4616 From: Kelly-Schoborg Land Services, Inc. [mailto:kelly@schoborgland.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 06, 2015 5:27 PM To: Mike Gaffron Cc: Christine Mattson; Melanie Curtis Subject: 2330 Oliver Hill/#2015-00388 Mike, I'd like to get some information out on the table before we meet on Friday. If at all possible, I'd like to come up with a solution before the meeting time as well. Please tell me your thoughts. For our survey dated April 22,2015, I was asked by Christine to show the grading plan contours instead of existing contours,so that she could calculate the building height and decide if the basement will be considered the first story or the basement level. Using my survey,she determined that less than 50%of the perimeter of the basement is at or below an elevation which is 6 feet below the first floor elevation of 1004.7.Since there is no 998.7 contour on the survey,she used the 998 contour.Again,this contour used in her calculations reflects the grading plan contours, not either the existing contours or proposed contours. Below this message is a copy of her email sent April 28th, and attached are the documents she sent to accompany it. You can see on her color-coded sketch,that a very small portion of the basement is covered by that 998 contour. I have some frustrations with this determination: 1.The use of the grading plan contours seems to hinder this particular house design,since it is set back a few feet from the imaginary house on the grading plan,and it is deeper(front to back)than the imaginary house on the grading plan. 2. If one assumed that the first floor of the imaginary house on the grading plan was at least 18 inches above the minimum top of foundation elevation shown on the grading plan(1002.5+ 1.5= 1004.0)and the same criteria were applied to the imaginary house on the grading plan (1004.0-6=998/at least 50%of the house at or above the 998 contour), it would also come up very short from meeting the those requirements. Christine said that your office plans to use the grading plan contours for this determination on every lot in this plat,but the language in the ordinance specifically says"existing grade"and does not specify grading plan grade for new developments or vacant lots. 2