My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-14-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
08-14-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 9:28:31 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 9:23:31 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.
/
244
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
!^ <br />U- <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />JULY 17,2000 <br />^ (W) #2602 JOHN GRAHAM, 1065 TAMARACK DRIVE-PROPOSED TWO LOT <br />SUBDIVISION, 7:18 p.m. - 7:50 p.m. <br />John Graham, Applicant, was present, along with Thomas and Jennifer Graham. <br />The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication. <br />Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a subdivision of a developed 5.1 acre parcel into <br />two lots, with one new building site being created consisting of 2.0 acres north of the existing <br />house. The c.xisting lot was platted as part of the Und'crhil' Farms Addition in 1976. A pond is <br />located on the property located on what would be the southern lot, with a flowage and <br />conservation casement being granted at the time the Underhill Farms Addition was recorded. <br />Weinberger stated Lot 1 would be the nc.\t building site and would meet the minimum lot size <br />and width for lots in the RR-IB Zoning District. Based on the survey submitted, the building <br />pad is located within the required setbacks and all setbacks arc met to the drainficld sites. This <br />lot w'ould share a drivewav with Lot 2, with an casement being granted in favor of Lot 2 for• * <br />access over Lot 1. Using the existing driveway would eliminate the need to cut down any trees <br />and works w ell with the existing house. Relocation of the driveway would result in the driveway <br />completely circling the house and come close to encroaching into the wetland setback area.. <br />Weinberger noted there is an existing storage building that would be located on Lot 1 w ithout a <br />principal building. Weinberger suggested the building remain for a defined length of time before <br />the principal building is constructed on the property or if the ow nership changes between Lot 1 <br />and Lot 2. <br />Weinberger stated Lot 2 would not have direct access to Tamarack nor to County Road 6. The <br />property ow ners would prefer to use the existing driveway located on Lot 2. Lot 2 also meets the <br />minimum requirements for subdivision. Hennepin County may have additional requirements for <br />that portion of property located along Count\' Road 6. Weinberger noted according to the survey <br />PAGE 11
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.