My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 9:39:27 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 9:39:25 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 21,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> #05-3161 LOREN FRITZ,CONTINUED) <br /> Gundlach stated Item C says driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 feet from the side or <br /> rear lot lines of adjacent lots. Gundlach stated in her view the intent is to require a larger setback for a <br /> residential lot. <br /> Jurgens inquired whether Lot 5 would count as an adjacent lot and whether ten feet would be required on <br /> both sides of the driveway. <br /> Gundlach stated her interpretation is that Lot 5 is part of the plat and that the standards exist to alleviate <br /> concerns dealing with setbacks to parcels not included within the development. Gundlach stated it is not <br /> clear whether the retaining wall should meet a 10-foot setback. Gundlach pointed out other sections of <br /> the code require a five-foot setback for retaining walls to lot lines. <br /> Bremer stated as long as the prospective buyers are aware of the close proximity of the driveway, she <br /> would not be opposed to shifting the driveway all the way over to the eastern edge of the outlot. <br /> Kempf stated in his view the shifting of the driveway toward Lot 5 would be more intrusive than locating <br /> the driveway closer to the western edge of the outlot. <br /> Jurgens stated the lot containing the pole barn could also be redeveloped sometime in the future. <br /> Rahn commented the development would be more widely viewed from County Road 19. Rahn stated <br /> typically the Planning Commission has taken the position that retaining walls are, at a minimum, five feet <br /> from the adjoining property. <br /> Rahn opened the public hearing. <br /> Marlene Fritz, 3845 North Shore Drive, stated they have resided in their home since 1968 and that their <br /> main purpose for purchasing the property was for the trees and privacy and that they would like to <br /> maintain that as much as possible. Fritz pointed out there is a wetland with a pole barn adjacent to it. <br /> Fritz stated in her opinion the neighbor's view would not be affected because their sight would be <br /> obstructed and that the people traveling on Highway 19 would also not be able to see the development <br /> due to the trees. <br /> Mark Dobratz, 3865 North Shore Drive, inquired how the water drainage would be handled off the back <br /> lot. <br /> Mary Dobratz stated that area was not a wetland when they purchased the property approximately 13 <br /> years ago and that it was not called a wetland until this area was surveyed. Dobratz indicated at certain <br /> times in some years there is some standing water in the area. Dobratz stated in her opinion the reason for <br /> the standing water this year is the culvert that is adjacent to the Fritz's driveway that runs under North <br /> Shore goes into a bonifide wetland and is continually blocked up. Dobratz stated Hennepin County has <br /> PAGE 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.