Laserfiche WebLink
• ' ' . <br /> r� <br /> � O� <br /> • O O <br /> ��, - CITY of ORONO <br /> � � <br /> �� G'� RESOLUTtON OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � �`�kESKO4� rvo. 4 � 0 6 -� � . <br /> 3. Lots 1 and 2 each meet the minimum size requirements for lots in the RR-1B <br /> zoning district. Minimum lot requirements are 200' of frontage along the front <br /> property line and 2.0 acres of dry buildable area. <br /> 4. Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager, has approved the septic design as <br /> submitted by the applicants. Lots 1 and 2 have each demonstrated two suitable <br /> septic sites meeting required setbacks. <br /> 5. Hennepin County has requested additional right-of-way to be measured at a total <br /> of 50' from the centerline of County Road 6. Most of the requested right-of-way <br /> has been previously acquired by Hennepin County. An additi�onal 8 to 10' would <br /> � be required. The additional right-of-way would be held for a future trail <br /> ' corridor. <br /> 6. A Flowage and Conservation Easement was previously dedicated on the plat of <br /> • Underhill Farms in 1976 for the pond and wetland areas located over proposed � <br /> Lot 2. <br /> 7. According to the title and survey information supplied by the subdividers, no <br /> drainage and utility easements have been dedicated along the property lines. The <br /> subdividers would be required to dedicate such easement as required by the <br /> Subdivision Code. � <br /> 8. An existing barn is located on proposed Lot 1 and would remain on the property <br /> following recording of the subdivision. The subdividers have requested the <br /> building be allowed to remain on the property and be used for storage for the <br /> time period Lots 1 and 2 are held in common ownership. At such time Lot 1 <br /> . would be sold out of common ownership with Lot 2, such conditions would be <br /> placed on the accessory building defining the time period the building would be <br /> permitted to remain without a principal building. <br /> � 9. Lot 2 would not have direct access to Tamarack Drive and would not be <br /> permitted access to County Road 6. The property owners would prefer to use <br /> the existing driveway that would be on Lot 2. A second driveway would require • <br /> removal of mature trees along the road. The existing driveway was designed <br /> � with the orientation of the existing house. A separate driveway for proposed Lot <br /> • Page 2 of 6 <br />