Laserfiche WebLink
wlm v +»oaso» <br />troN [. wxao» <br />Noa.[ <br />coa�xeI, r. tc»NIo <br />»IO Olxt <br />I.O w[xt rx[[in0 <br />tlO x[r n <br />WOOStVw,� .xa w[W[ <br />i [Ow6W • 'JOxxtix <br />i. i6r0\a <br />i t[w <br />o[\on <br />wuT <br />�..,'w� w[. xo[wwx <br />n�i T <br />i.m...°:w[Ntax <br />o o[oN <br />•[[ ..r CON <br />N m»nu J, awr[w� <br />MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE <br />LAW OFFICES <br />1600 T C r TOWER <br />121 SOVTM EIG»T» STREET <br />MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 <br />T[\[[ ]pOp O• <br />T [v[c0.¢w m enJ <br />Ms. Kathleen Blatz <br />Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, <br />Kaufman a Doty, Ltd, <br />4344 IDS Center <br />Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 <br />January 30, 1987 <br />FEB - 31987 <br />A..A. <br />\\ luu-nag •uwr aYxOOa[ U[M-Ipppl <br />Re: City of Orono - Hollander Subdivision Outlot B <br />Zoning File No. 1090 <br />Dear Ms. Blatz: <br />We represent the estate of Hilder Hollander ("Estate") <br />in the above -captioned matter. Attached to this letter is the <br />Notice of Planning Commission Action with respect to the subdivi- <br />sion application filed by Roger W. Hollander, one of the personal <br />representatives of the Estate. The purpose of this letter is to <br />address the legal issues raised by the attached Notice, and to <br />give you an opportunity to review these matters pr-or the City <br />Council meeting on February 9, 1987, <br />With respect to Issues A through D, the Estate has no <br />dispute with the matters addressed under those headings. <br />Under Issue E, Item 8, I agree with the staff finding <br />that a variance must be granted to the 200' public road frontage <br />requirement; the variance should be granted since the City has <br />taken the position that access to Lot 1 may only be from Hollander <br />Road (and not County Road 6). and that Hollander Road is to be <br />considered the front of Lot i for all purposes. <br />Under Issue E, Item 8, the issue is raised whether Lot 1 <br />is a "through lot" as defined under Orono, M1:In., RP--, Ordinances <br />§ 10.02(42). There are two consequences in the ins*.nt case of <br />categorizing Lot 1 as a "through lot." The first is that a condi- <br />tional use permit is required for construction of accessory struc- <br />tures (see, Issue G), and the second is the lot must meet the 200' <br />frontage requirements on both the front and back of the lot. Id. <br />at §§ 10.03 Subd. 10; 10.02(42) and 10.75 Subd. 4(A). A "through <br />