My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 5128
Orono
>
Resolutions
>
Resolution 0001-7547
>
Reso 5100 - 5199 January 12, 2004 - June 14, 2004)
>
Resolution 5128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/10/2015 11:11:36 AM
Creation date
11/10/2015 11:11:36 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
� . <br /> � O " • <br /> O O <br /> • �� � C ITY of ORONO <br /> � � <br /> ti <br /> �'� G�' . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��kES�I�g'� NO. � � � � <br /> 11. Substantial runoff from the adjoining properties to the east flows westward over <br /> the property. Incorporation of drainage swales is necessary along the driveway <br /> to accommodate this drainage. <br /> 12. Because the property includes a significant length of creek which flows to Lake <br /> Minnetonka, the incorporation of vegetative buffers for stormwater treatment is <br /> . appropriate. The applicant has proposed a 35' buffer adjacent to either side of <br /> the creek, which will be subject to a buffer easement. � <br /> 13. The topography of the site indicates a steep hill at the south end of Lot 1, and <br /> the proposed driveway will skirt the base of this hill. Neighbors have expressed <br /> a concern whether this area might be buildable. The slope is approximately 40% <br /> in some areas, and portions of it may meet the definition of a bluff, which <br /> . would be unbuildable area. The area southeast of the creek within Lot 1 with <br /> slopes of 18% or greater should be deemed as non-buildable. <br /> • <br /> 14. A park fee of$200 was paid for the existing Lot 1 when it was created in 1990 <br /> per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2, on <br /> the basis that Lot 2 had previously had a house on it. Because the current <br /> application is primarily a lot line rearrangement between two existing lots of <br /> record, no park fees should be due with the current application. <br /> 15. Because the subdivision is primarily the rearrangement of two existing lots in <br /> order to make the northerly lot buildable, the argument can be made that only <br /> the newly buildable lot (Lot 1) should be subject to the Storm Water and <br /> Drainage Trunk Fee which is charged for land being developed. <br /> 16. Based on the above findings and appropriate conditions of approval, the <br /> proposed re-plat will result in two lots suitable for the construction of single <br /> family residences without the need for further variances. <br /> � <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.