My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-18-1982 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1982
>
01-18-1982 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 10:56:20 AM
Creation date
2/15/2023 10:54:52 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
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
r • <br />fe-' <br />I <br />IL <br />\ '^■.. %. <br />I*' <br />; -.V <br />U‘ <br />Jeanne A. Mabusth and Planning O <br />Alan P. Olson <br />• )MUI ilssion <br />January 13, 1982 <br />SUBJECT: #669 Tonka Lake Properties - PRD Subdivision <br />1340 Baldur Park Road <br />This is the second application by Gary Peterson for develop- <br />ment of this property. The first, #466 received preliminary <br />approval for 3 LR-IC single family residential lots on <br />July 13, 1979. That application died without ever having <br />documents returned for final approval. <br />This is the sketch plan application wherein the developer <br />seeks approval of the PRO concept, and the 5 unit density. <br />PRO <br />athere ever was a piece of property in the City that is <br />appropriate for PRO development, the tip of Baldur Park <br />must be it. There is an^le dry land area but it's build- <br />ability is restricted by flood plain and lakeshore set <br />backs. Clustering of the development with open spaces in <br />the setback-flood plain area is a logical scheme to use. <br />Note that building envelopes should still provide at least <br />20 feet between structures. At least two proposed setbacks <br />are less requiring redesign or hardship docximentatlon. <br />The only real issues to me are density and hardcover. <br />The original scheme had 3 lots, each of which individually <br />exceeded the >s acre lot area required. They were served <br />by a private driveway off a new dedicated public cul de sac. <br />That was consistent with CMP policies allowing private <br />driveways to serve 1-3 units. <br />OPEN SPACE <br />This schetae clusters individual lots of varying sizes. <br />There is no common open space except for the proposed <br />private driveway. I iirould suggest requiring common open <br />space below the 931.5 floodplain elevation with individual <br />lots platted only above that elevation. <br />yCESS ROAD RTOUIREMENTS <br />1 also note that our CMP policies would not allow a 16' <br />wide private driveway to serve more than S imits. With <br />this 5 unit density, a wider road (at least 24* paved) <br />with turning facilities fox emergency equipment is required. <br />This could be private in the PRO concept, but the physical <br />improvements must be there to serve this number of units. <br />.r*' ..- X.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.