Laserfiche WebLink
Lre additional <br />Prior to final <br />rmation that a <br />serve existing <br />’ to final plat <br />Ln the existing <br />t of the impact <br />gentler sloped <br />B lot. <br />Btlon for <br />mnepln County <br />cut on County <br />Lng accessory <br />leed to confirm <br />} both easement <br />e area o th« <br />r outlet Would <br />Our code does <br />lements or road <br />e 19r 1989 - <br />Lie Works <br />Icetches of <br />nission action <br />egarding access <br />Bssory/detached <br />H <br />ism <br />MS <br />-t'... <br />l <br />mmpmmm <br />'.►■rX, <br />t-. „ -. V <br />Siii <br />RSil <br />ftp 1 <br />smmr-’.Zoning Pile #1405 June 13, 1989 <br />Page 6 <br />As to the access, applicants went with Option A (Exhibit H- <br />3). The driveway easement and area to the west has been defined <br />as Outlet A. Area of Lot 3 has been reconfirmed with 2 acres of <br />dry contiguous land by readjusting the lot line between Lots 3 <br />and 1. The future owner of Lot 3 shall retain ownership of <br />Outlet A because of the temporary status of access to the Lot 2 <br />via the outlet - depending upon future division of Lot 1. An <br />approval of this subdivision must be conditioned on Lot 3 being <br />legally combined with Outlet A and that an access easement must <br />be granted by the owner of Outlet A to Lot 2. <br />As to the accessory structure, the applicants choose to go <br />with Option B (Exhibit H-6). Note the principal structure is now <br />30' from the side lot line and the detached accessory structure <br />located within Lot 1 is now 14' from the lot line. If the <br />proposed plan is approved by the Planning Commission, a condition <br />of approval must include advise to the future owner of Lot 1 that <br />if a building permit has not been issued within 1 year from final <br />plat approval the accessory structure must be r^oved. <br />Please review Exhibit J, applicants were asked to provide a <br />site plan showing the location of the private driveway because of <br />the many concerns expressed by the adjacent neighbors at the <br />public hearing. It is staff's understanding that the applicants <br />reviewed the placement of the driveway with the neighbors <br />and to staff's knowledge have voiced no concern. Staff would <br />c®ll to the attention of the Planning Commission that the <br />driveway is not 26' from the wetlands as the original staff memo <br />had advised the applicants. The wetlands is designated at the <br />933 elevation. The proposed drive must be 26' from the 933 <br />elevation. There is adequate width within the corridor to meet <br />the 26' setback. If approved, a condition of approval must be <br />that the access drive meet the 26' setback from the wetlands <br />defined at the 933 elevation. <br />Please review Exhibit G, the Hennepin County Department of <br />Public Works has asked for an additional 7* of right-of-way for <br />^oth County Road 84 and County Road 51. The City of Orono has <br />consistently refused to grant the additional 7' of right-of-way <br />holding the maximum right-of-way for both county roads at 66' <br />maximum width. The City will only ask for the dedication of <br />roadway as shown on the preliminary plan. <br />Please review Exhibit I, Steve Schirmers has completed the <br />additional testing for an alternate septic site for Lot 2. The <br />alternate site would be to the immediate north of the previously <br />tested site.