Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Filo #1405 <br />^ Juno 13» 1989 <br />iF«go € <br />A« to tho nccoss, nppllcanti wont with Option A (Exhibit H- <br />3). Tho drivowoy oosomont and area tc. tho woat has boon dofinod <br />ao Outlet A. Aroa of Lot 3 has boon roconfirmod with 2 acros of <br />dry contiguous land by roadjusting tho lot lino botwoon Lots 3 <br />and 1. Tho futuro ownor of Lot 3 shall rotain ownorship of <br />Outlet A bocauso of tho tomporary status of accoss to tho Lot 2 <br />vi.. tho outlet - doponding upon futuro division of Lot 1. An <br />approval of this subdivision must bo conditionod on Lot 3 'doing <br />^^9*1 iy conbinod with Outlet A and that an accoss oasoraont must <br />bo granted by tho ownor of Outlet A to Lot 2. <br />As to tho accossory structuror tho applicants chooso to go <br />with option B (Exhibit H-6). Noto tho principal structure is now <br />30' from tho sido lot lino and tho dotachod accossory structure <br />located within Lot 1 is now 14' from tho lot lino. If tho <br />proposed plan is approved by tho Planning Commission, a c^^^ditlon <br />of approval a ist include advise to tho futuro ownor of Lot 1 that <br />if a building permit has not boon issued within 1 year from final <br />plat approval tho accessory structure must bo removed. <br />Please review Exhibit J, applicants wore asked to provide a <br />site plan showing tho location of tho private driveway bocauso of <br />tho many concerns expressed by tho adjacent neighbors at tho <br />public hearing. It is staff's understanding that the applicants <br />have reviewed tho placement of tho driveway with tho neighbors <br />and to staff's knowledge have voiced no concern. Staff would <br />call to tho attention of tho Planning Commission that tho <br />driveway is not 26' from tho wetlands as tho < • ginal staff memo <br />had advised tho applicants. Tho wetlands is designated at tho <br />933 elevation. Tho proposed d^ivo must be 26* from tho 933 <br />elevation. There is adequate width within the corridor to meet <br />the 26' setback. If approver., 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 />both 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 loth 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 S^hlrmers 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.