09-06-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lanier that a excep'..’on into ,s unfortunately ve been with the » have been two t to stibstandard ctoria Estates), oval by the City the properties to The substandardlirement for the ated to provide 3 time Lanier had ng purchasing the he acquired the le erased and he lard parcel up to er Exhibit P Mr. rty into two acre rIson's letter of s discussion that anier because his is City had never paid. In fact, at er two referenced r purchase at the tic development, nances to bring jp to code, but we the revised plan the creation of a but only if the tily two cond^ ions to demand tnat a be brought up to a considered in of the City. larcels adjacent tings along Fox les may provide ease review the t Q). l11 approve an reet when access and owners have ivate covanents •¥2 - •' ii;;:-.-' mmmMsM -T*; ,2:-; .2 1*21 P: '■‘vP ■--f. . 2 >2 ipii m--'- .-s ■ 2V-2' WM ... S ■ . ••'r:: ■••■ ■ 2; -2 22 2 s m m •' ’ ■:mmmi, ajiVi.' -‘-i: ■;m 'Wm- wm :p.- :::f^ Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 8 of 9Item 2. The wetlands within this property are not protected wetlands under the DNR. They are not subject to the United States Department of Pish and Wildlife and if major alterations of a wetland are propsed the Army Corps of Engineers would be asked to comment.Item 3. I believe this was previously addressed by staff.Item 4. These requests have already been addressed by the applicant. ^ Item 5. Has been addressed by applicant. Item 6. Will be addressed by applicant. Prior to noting the Planning Commission's options for action staff would request that if members have questions or seek additional information to contact staff prior to the meeting, staff suggests that you make this request by Tuesday- Options of Action Denial. If denied Planning Commission may deny it on the basis proposal is in conflict with the intent of the subdivision regulations of the City. Refer to Section 11.02 Subd. 2 for a listing of Intent. Approval based on the following findings: 1. Applicant has submitted adequate septic testing to confirm that there is suitable area within each proposed lot to satify the on —site sewage code of the City of Orono. 2. The proposed lot design and configuration finds that each lot has satisfied the lot standards of the RR-IB Rural Residential zoning district requiring no variance with in the approval of this subdivision. Each lot can be developed as a residential unit without the need of future variances. 3. The. only variamce that has to be granted is the variance that would require each lot to achieve access via a public road. In the creation of the private road the City must grant a variance. Staff would suggest this is in complete conflict with the true intent of the code as the City discourages access onto public roadways and encourages the development of private roads. Approval is subject to the following conditions: m • 'V-' • wmm^k-::H 22*::,;am2.2:2''1 2: ;V2V';. - : V •;■ ► ■ Mi Pi m 2' kk.y-^ mkki V; . yi'-'-- ••■'••J -' k -:2' ■ . : ».••• •2---;2..v|^2., 2;; 2.2 .2., •-i-Mm K-‘==f - 2. 2. , 2 kklk ■mk .22' ' ..2*. .©V» mmmkm I ■ liJMiii ^ ix:rk^:y \^2©;^M ^ 2 r ■ V©' V U. 'Ji'B -i r .-•fA'