My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-15-1996 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1996
>
04-15-1996 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/7/2023 2:48:16 PM
Creation date
9/7/2023 2:42:11 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.
/
283
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
Zoning File #2130 <br />April 10, 1996 <br />Page 5 <br />Review Exhibit B, the Park Commission recommended taking cash in lieu of a dedication of <br />land for park use. The motion included a desire to have a trail that connected to Garden Lane <br />as long as the plat road was public allowing the public to use the road as access to the trml. <br />If the roadway is public, the area of the trail would then be deducted from the park dedication <br />fee. If the developer installs private trails linking Garden Lane to residential lots, this area <br />would not be deducted from the park dedication fee. <br />Issue of Bluff <br />Review Exhibits E and F, Mike Gaffron has developed a profile of the bluff and the A/B chord <br />located on the topographic map. He advises that based on the directives of the Code that the <br />property does not contain bluff areas requiring additional setbacks. <br />Hardcover <br />The eastern portion of the property is located within the 250-500' setback area ^d the western <br />portions within 500-1000'. In fact, the entire property would be located within 1000’ of the <br />shoreline of Forest Lake and subject to all hardcover controls. <br />Issues to be Resolved by Planning Commission <br />1.Do members still concur that five lot plat road should remain private with no foture <br />extension to Garden Lane? If members disagree and der ide road should be public, an <br />extension corridor must be provided to Garden Lane. Utility easements could then be <br />located within the road extension and trail easement located adjacent to roadway <br />extension. <br />2.Planning Commission members were concerned with the questions and issues raised by <br />adjacent prop-uy owners that attended the sketch plan review. The applicant should be <br />asked to advise the Planning Commission as to the outcome of his meeting with the <br />neighbors and their opinion on the proposed preliminary plat. <br />3.If the road remains private and a utility easement for the sewer line is extended to <br />Garden Lane, should the sewer line be extended to Garden Lane as urged by the <br />Engineer and recommended by staff? <br />4.What about a drainage easement over the ravine area to the north? At an earlier 1980’s <br />review, the Engineer recommended a 50' easement along the west and as it extended to <br />the northeast expanded to a 75' width. <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.