My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-26-1989 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
06-26-1989 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2025 2:20:48 PM
Creation date
4/22/2025 2:19:20 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.
/
219
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 #1410 <br />May 11, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />5,Besed on the drainfield sites, and the required 30^ side <br />setbacks, an odd shaped building envelope_of approximately <br />7,200 s.f. would be available and still leave adequate <br />setbc:ck to tne mound sites. <br />6.Because of the location of the mound sites, required <br />setbacks, and narrowness of the property, the proposed <br />building envelope is extremely limited and will require <br />cautious site planning to develop a residence. <br />7.The proposed house site is at a high point on the lot, and <br />drainage generally would flow away from the house and away <br />from neighboring residences towards two natural wetland <br />areas to the southwest and northeast of the property. The <br />drainage impact of this development would be minimal. <br />8.Note that the applicant also owns an adjacent 3'-acre <br />developed parcel. Both the existing house and che lot for <br />which a variance is requested exceed the 2 acre requirement. <br />The existing house has a tested alternate drainfield site. <br />Allowing this lot width variance and granting buildability <br />to the parcel in question will not limit the septic <br />capabilities for the existing residence property. <br />9.Hennepin County has indicated they will approve a driveway <br />access at County Road 15 for the subject property (see the <br />attached memo from Dave Zetterstrom). <br />Discussion - <br />The applicant and her surveyor have suggested a conceptual <br />house location and design for purposes of discussion. Since <br />applicant's intent is to either Re 11 the entire 5-&cre property <br />as a single u;iit or sell off the house and extra lot separately, <br />we are certainly not bound to this specific site plan. Also note <br />that, since one of the likely drainfield sit^s is directly east <br />of th^ building envelope, the garage certhinly could not be <br />orient c»d as shown on the survey and still maintain driveway <br />setback?? from the drainfield* area. Certainly this specific house <br />plan could be re-oriented to eliminate any conflict, and it is <br />most likely that a different house entirely will be constructed <br />on this lot if the variance is approved. <br />Note that at its widest point, the lot is less than the 200* <br />required lot width. <br />An option which applicant would prefer to avoid, is a lot <br />line rearrangement to give the subject property more acreage. A <br />schematic to accomplish that is shown in Exhibit E. Note that by <br />adding 5,000 s.f. to the lot the potential usable building <br />envelope is practically doubled.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.