My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-19-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
04-19-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 11:42:11 AM
Creation date
1/26/2023 11:34:17 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
381
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
mi <br />hills and various other topography which limits vehicular access to some lots. <br />Also it was explained that the various paths between the other existing available <br />alternate public access sites on the Island and this eastern portion are difficult <br />because of low lying land, steep hills, and marshes. <br />Is the desire to access all portions of property, especially with vehicles, <br />and difficulty in using currently existing access options and paths a sufficient <br />hardship to justify this work and the granting of these requests? <br />Exactly who is using or reasonably going to be using this improved <br />access and for what purposes to justify this requested work and variance and <br />conditional use permit? <br />How is the Planning Commission defining what is and is not adequate <br />access in this situation? For this particular portion of Big Island? How many <br />access sites are needed to service Big Island and what is the criteria and <br />reasoning being used to determine these questions? Exactly what criteria is <br />being used to determine if the existing interior paths from the alternate access <br />sites to this area are sufltcient or not? <br />Normally the City and City staff are extremely stringent in forbidding any <br />such work within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka and/or within any protected <br />wetland. How is this work different from similar work frequently desired and <br />proposed by private lakeshore and wetland property owners? <br />Exactly what mitigation is being proposed and/or required regarding this <br />work? What criteria is being used to evaluate this mitigation, especially how <br />much mitigation is necessary? What is the exact timing sequence of the <br />convsponding mitigation and permit work being proposed (what happens first, <br />fill or mitigation, second,etc.)? <br />What grading is being requested, and what is the claimed hardship that <br />requires grading, and what criteria is being used to evaluate and decide this <br />grading portion of the requests? How steep is acceptible, etc.? <br />What alternate methods of dealing with the various claimed hardships <br />have been explored and why are those not being pursued rather than these <br />requested actions? <br />Since the City and City staff have chosen to vehemently prevent exactly <br />similar work by private property owners, 1 request that these questions be <br />addressed in detail to clarify how and under v^t circumstances such work is <br />acceptible and necessary. Ihis will help provide some basis for equal application <br />and enforcement of the relevent niles and requirements. Thank you <br />P.2L
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.