My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-21-1989 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1989
>
08-21-1989 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2023 3:31:32 PM
Creation date
11/22/2023 12:23:12 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.
/
246
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
wmm' <br />SM:f:-.’vy -rWMMBm#dissii^iiii^'Zoning File #1448 August 15, 1989 Page 4 of 5Because Willow Drive may ultimately become County Road 116, a copy of the proposed plat has been sent to Hennepin County review. Although no word has been received as of this it is anticipated that the County will ask for at least 7 of additional right-of-way along Willow Drive, totight-of-way width either side of the center <br />line. This will not significantly Impact proposed Lot 1, <br />but note that the existing drainfield in Lot 2 is just 10* <br />from the current right-of-way and would be very near a <br />widened right-of-way. Depending on the future need for turn <br />lanes, etc. for southbound Willow Drive, widening of Willow <br />Drive may scsneday have an Impact on that drainfield system. <br />AS noted previously, at least two additional drainfield sites are available. <br />Existing accessory buildings on Lot 2 total*2,900 square <br />^ accessory structure ordinance, which was <br />adopted after the current subdivision application was made, <br />would allow only 2,400 square feet of accessory buildings <br />for a lot from 2.00 to 3.00 acres in area. Planning <br />Commission might wish to consider the following options: <br />A) Determine that this application is not subject to <br />that ordinance, since application was made before that ordinance was passed. <br />B) Recommend that a variance be granted to keep the <br />existing accessory structures as-is. <br />C) Recommend that applicant be required to remove one <br />or more buildings to meet the 2,400 square foot maximum <br />combined footprint for accessory structures. <br />Discussion - <br />pisillHfM <br />The proposed dividing line leaves adequate setbacks to all existing buildings. <br />Staff Recommendation - <br />mK would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision. <br />Coroisslon*^^**^ Issues should be addressed by the Planning <br />1^ <br />tk <br />' ;• ■ . * ~IIMP <br />4 <br />W ■■ <br />■dru -.. - <br />>)*.• ■■ <br />■■'-'A’" "v• ’ ‘-i. <br />-iiiiiiiSmmm <br />.^ t.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.