My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-17-1986 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1986
>
11-17-1986 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2024 10:06:35 AM
Creation date
1/18/2024 10:00:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
186
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
li <br />Zoning File #1093 <br />November 13, 1986 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Issues <br />1. Designated rTetland on Lot 2 <br />Exhibit G shows that the basin within Lot 2 is a 0.3 acre <br />designated wetland. The wetland basin has been drained since prior to <br />1971 when the airphotos were taken. From the topography on your <br />preliminary plat, you can see the channel that has been dug by a <br />former property owner to "dry up" this basin. The basin does^ not <br />appear to hold any substantial amount of water. Please see^ Exhibit P, <br />Glenn Cooks letter regarding this wetland. Its designation or non <br />designation could become a critical issue because alternative drain- <br />field sites might be located relatively near its boundaries, if it is <br />guaranteed to stay as a drained basin. On the other hand, if the City <br />were to determine that it is a critical wetland basin and should be <br />m.odified to hold water again, this might negate any nearby drainfield <br />sites. <br />It would be unusual, if not precendent-setting, for the City to <br />"ufi —designate" an entire wetland basin. In this case, ^ however, since <br />it has apparently been drained since before it was designated in 197J, <br />perhaps it can be abandoned. This is an item for discussion. <br />II. Access Location <br />The private road access to County Road 6 over the existing <br />driveway has been verbally approved by Hennepin County, although it is <br />obvious that tying into Tanglewood Road would be preferable from a <br />long-term safety standpoint. The Tanglewood homeowners have <br />apparently refused applicants' request to access onto Tanglewood (see <br />Exhibit E). Although the original Tanglewood subdivision involved the <br />granting of a Road & Utilities Easement to the City, it is <br />questionable whether the City has the right to force the Tanglewood <br />homeowners to allow another private road accessing to Tanglewood Road, <br />unless the City takes over maintenance of a portion or all of <br />Tanglewood Road. The City Attorney has been asked to give an opinion <br />on this. <br />III. Future Access to North or East <br />The 11-acre property directly north of subject property has <br />direct acess to Tamarack Drive. Given that the property to the east <br />is already developed, staff sees no pressing need to provide for <br />future access to the north or east. This could be an item for <br />discussion.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.