02-09-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1090 November 11, 1986 Page 2 II. Issues Unresolved From Previous Subdivision Approvals A. Garage on proposed Lot 2: The detached garage on what is now proposed Lot 2 was to be removed from the front yard setback area as a condition of original subdivision approval in 1978. Follow-up inspections conducted in 1979, 1980 and 1986 indicate this has never been done. B. Access driveway to County Road 6: An access driveway serving the residences on proposed Lot 1 was to be removed and regraded to eliminate any direct access off of County Road 6. A new driveway was constructed to serve those residences from Hollander Road, but the old driveway was never removed and today is still used as a primary access from County Road 6. C. Road outlot ownership: Mrs. Hollander for many years persisted in trying to have the City take over Hollander Road as a public road. The City never intended it to be public, and has steadfastly refused to accept the road as public. You will note that the County has listed Orono as "taxpayer" on the road outlot with Hildur P. Hollander as owner (see property owners list). The City has been doing battle with Hennepin County over this for at least 3-4 years. Mrs. Hollander never filed the paperwork to create a Homeowner's Association to maintain the road. Now, the existing homeowners served by Hollander Road are not in unRnimous agreement regarding a Homeowner's Association, hence mafn—tenance and ownership of the road is a potential on- going problem. III. Issues and Facts Regarding Proposed Lots: Lot 1 1. Septic system and well on Lot 1 are approximately as shown. on Exhibit E. Soil testing to find an alternate site for the large house has commenced but no report as of this writing. Note that driveway might be over the existing drainfield, but it is functioning adequ.`ely. The small rental house has a septic system, but no well to staffs knowledge. 2. The main residence meets the required 30' side setbacks and other required setbacks from proposed property lines. 3. The proposed Lot 1 requires a variance to lot width as measured at the 50' setback from County Road 6 (186.90' where 200' is required), but meets the lot width requirement as measured based on the private road being the front yard.