My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-20-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
03-20-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2018 1:46:52 PM
Creation date
2/5/2018 1:45:18 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.
/
370
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
f <br /> FILE#17-3917 <br /> 20 Mar 2017 <br /> Page 3 of 6 <br /> approximately 6 feet higher than the existing grade and will be set back 75 feet from the OHWL, <br /> the proposed home will be 98 feet from the OHWL. <br /> Additional Site Plan Comments (Sec. 18-136,78-1405&78-1681) <br /> Driveway—The City Code requires driveways constructed to a minimum width consistent with <br /> the total width of the overhead garage doors.The current garage plan reflects 3 overhead doors <br /> with driveway paved to serve only two.The driveway will need to be modified. <br /> Additionally, properties on an arterial or collector roadway must provide a turnaround on site <br /> with minimum dimensions of 8 feet by 12 feet. It appears the applicants have attempted to <br /> accommodate this turnaround within the right-of-way. City Code limits the driveway curb cut <br /> width to 20 feet within the right-of-way.This driveway is shown at 20 feet with the allowed <br /> radius flaring, however the driveway widens to 30 feet within the right-of-way.The portion of <br /> the driveway within the right-of-way must be reduced to meet the Code requirement of 20 feet <br /> maximum.The proposed driveway must be revised to meet the Code and hardcover levels <br /> updated to reflect the required driveway dimensions,etc. <br /> Privacy Fence—The site plan reflects a privacy fence along the eastern side street property line. <br /> Staff assumes "privacy fence"equates to a six foot tall fence which is the maximum height <br /> permitted within the setback area.The proposed fence crosses the property line and <br /> encroaches into the Hennepin County right-of-way.This must be revised. <br /> The only neighbor comments received at the time of printing were from an off lake neighbor <br /> who expressed concerns about the potential for the applicants to plant additional trees along <br /> the eastern property line resulting in elimination of the existing limited view of the lake for this <br /> neighbor. While this neighbor's lake view is not protected,the applicants should provide a <br /> landscape plan detailing tree removals and planting. <br /> Hennepin County Right-of-Way—The applicants are proposing grading,which would assume <br /> tree removal, and driveway changes within the Hennepin County right-of-way. Hennepin County <br /> should review the proposed plans, permits may be required. <br /> Engineered Design for Retaining Walls—Retaining walls 4 feet or greater in height must be <br /> designed by a licensed professional, and plans must be submitted to the City for review prior to <br /> the approval of the permit. Tiered walls are considered one wall unless they are separated by at <br /> least twice the height of the higher wall. <br /> Governing Regulation:Variance(Section 78-123) <br /> In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br /> proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br /> anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect <br /> on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances <br /> where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique <br /> to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is <br /> demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning <br /> Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties <br /> also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.