My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-18-1998 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
05-18-1998 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2023 1:22:48 PM
Creation date
7/27/2023 1:12:25 PM
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.
/
459
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).
View images
View plain text
#2340 - Robert & Iris Waade <br />May 15, 1998 <br />Page 7 <br />Issues to Resolve : <br />1. <br />2. <br />Need to revise grading and drainage plans to match changes to preliminary plat. <br />Further study of how this development will impact neighboring drainage is required. <br />Applicant's engineer. Public Ser\ ices Director and City Engineer need to meet to review this <br />issue prior to Council action on preliminar>' plat. <br />2.Need to address City Engineer’s other comments in various review letters as part of final plat <br />process. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />1. The variances noted above are required regardless whether Lot 2 contains a single home or <br />a duplex. These variances primarily relate to the size of the Outlets, and are a function of the site not <br />having enough area to conform with the required standards. Planning Commission must make a <br />recommendation as to whether the variances should be granted. In staffs opinion, the negative <br />impacts of the specific required variances are relatively minor . <br />2. The CUP for the berm should be granted, subject to confirmation that a sewer easement is <br />in effect. If something can be worked out between applicant and Lakeside, the City should allow the <br />berm to be centered on the lot line. <br />3. The drainage issues seem to be a stumbling block, in that there app>ear to be potential impacts <br />to ofTsite properties even though applicant can adequately deal with the runoff coming from the <br />proposed development. Study is needed to resolve these concerns prior to preliminary plat approval <br />bv Council. <br />4. This subdivision has been before the Planning Commission as a sketch plan in January, and <br />reviewed as a formal plat proposal at the February and March meetings. Members of the public have <br />been vocal in their opposition to the duplex concept (especially the rental aspect) even though the <br />zoning code would allow a duplex at this location as a CUP, which is part of the request. Other than <br />the Outlot variances which will be required whether or not Lot 2 contains a duplex, the proposal <br />meets the CUP standards established in the code for allowing a duplex, i.e. it's sewered and within <br />200' of a commercial property (Section 10.20, Subd. 31). Staff recommends approva l of the duplex <br />CUP, <br />Staff recommends that Planning Commission make a recommendation based on the information at <br />hand and forward this application to the City Council for review. <br />Mi
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.