My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-20-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
03-20-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2023 3:30:43 PM
Creation date
9/27/2023 3:26:26 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.
/
207
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
1 <br />Zoning File #2004 <br />March 16, 1995 <br />Page 3 <br />trees but of more impact, the easement driveway would divide the buildable envelope. Applicant <br />could no lon2er credit the area on both sides of the easement to satisfy minimum lot <br />requirements. The access drive ’s encroachment of the wetland with Plan A approaches at the <br />narrowest area of the designated wetland. In fact, this area of the wetland is a drainageway <br />connectine the larger wetland area at the northwest to the wetland at the southeast comer that <br />evenmallv^drains eastward to French Uke, review E.xhibit E. The real issue for the City with <br />Plan A is does the third residential unit force the upgrade of the City’s private driveway. For <br />variances to be granted to Section 11.33. Subdivision 4, specific hardships and unique findings <br />must be found. The applicant has suggested the following in his addendum: <br />1.A private road with cul-de-sac will result in massive tree removal at the northeast <br />end of the driveway. <br />The desire to maintain a preserve-like atmosphere. <br />3.The loss of trees would have a negative impact on not only the Preserve but the <br />residences in the immediate area and the long-established residential development <br />to the north, south and east sides of the French Lake community. <br />4.The negative impact on Lot 3 with the loss of more trees if it was to share an <br />access with Lot 4. <br />Review of Plan B <br />Clearly, the unpopular plan, there is also a need to address variances to Section 11.33, <br />Subdivision 4. The code requires an internal road with the development of a four lot plat. <br />Many of the findings and hardships noted above can also be made for the development of an <br />internal road within the subject property. The applicant notes the following additional findings: <br />1.The construction of a road with cul-de-sac will result in the loss of approximately <br />650, 45 year old unique spruce and pine trees. This is a unique heavily-forested <br />property similar to the Sugar Woods property, at which time the City rezoned the <br />rural property and extended sewer to it in order to save the unique forested area. <br />The internal road would have an extensive impact on the wetlands resulting in the <br />filling of some 2400 s.f. of wetlands vs. 800 s.f. with Plan A. <br />3.Hennepin County DOT has approved the location of the two curb cuts for the <br />shared drive and single drive along Old Crystal Bay Road recognizing the <br />uniqueness of the property.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.