My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-24-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
10-24-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2023 11:57:13 AM
Creation date
12/11/2023 11:53:13 AM
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.
/
379
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 #1967 <br />September 15, 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />evaluation process. Since the Olson property currently has a faUing septic system, the primary <br />site will be used immediately and the alternate site would remain for potential future use. <br />Lot Standards for Existing Residence <br />Please review the proposed single lot division. Exhibit G. In the narrow context of a single lot <br />subdivision, this lot would require a number of variances to lot standards, i.e.: <br />- Only 187’ of frontoge on Bayside Road. <br />- A 30’ setback from the proposed south lot line which would be considered as a rear <br />lot line, but which becomes a side lot line in the context of the larger subdivision. <br />Clearly, this Mot division only makes sense in the context of the full multi-lot subdivision. <br />Proposed Outlot A <br />Again in the context of the single lot subdivision, the layout of Outlot A would be illogical. <br />Howeier, it fits together in the context of the complete proposal. <br />If Lot 1 is split off from the remainder of the Olson parcel as proposed, and Outlot Ai* created, <br />what is the down side to the City if the future subdivision for some ** <br />In creating Outlot A, with the very narrow neck at the southeast comer of the Geffire p pe^ <br />and leaving 150’ of frontage on Bayside Road, the outlot would not be conf<^mg in lot wid* <br />as all individual building site. It would certainly be appropriate that the City place specific <br />restrictions on Outlot A, as follows; <br />1 Outlot A is created merely for future development, and shall not ^ <br />■ family residential purposes until a future plat has been approved by the City. <br />2. Park dedication fees will be due when Outlot A is platted for future development. <br />3 Any future platting of Outlot A that does not include the Geffre property must »*)clude <br />■ ihe^OIson property (Lot 1) to result in the Olson property becoming confomimg to <br />the lot width, area and setback standards of the RR-IB Zonmg Distn . <br />Proposed Future Access Location <br />I. is the developer s imem that a new private toad be developed <br />Hennepin County DOT that the current driveway locauon would be an p <br />location. <br />A
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.