Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1475 <br />January 11, 1990 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />The County also strongly recommended extending Outlet A <br />across Lot 2 to eventually serve McDowell homestead lot if <br />Bayside Ridge Road" becomes a City street. Their intent is to <br />centralize the access locations by removing as many driveways as <br />possible from the County road. The County noted that accessing <br />lots by Bayside Ridge Road would ultimately be the most <br />appropriate outcome if the legal issues could be resolved. <br />Access Issues - <br />The following would appear to be Issues for discussion <br />regarding access for the subdivision to create Lots 2 and 3: <br />1. Proposed Lot 2 has frontage on Bayside Road and has 200' <br />of width at the 50' setback line from Bayside Road. <br />However, because there is no safe access along Lot 2's <br />Bayside Road frontage, Lot 2 and 3 would gain access via an <br />easement through the White property. The center line of <br />this proposed easement is at the northwest corner of <br />proposed Lot 2, hence the easement will abut Lot 2 and <br />Outlot A. Does Planning Commission have any concerns <br />regarding the use of this easement for legal access to Lots <br />2 and 3? <br />2. Outlot A was originally intended to provide a legal <br />access corridor to "Bayside Ridge Road" for Lot 2. Given <br />the new proposed easement, is Outlot A strictly necessary? <br />Note that Hennepin County proposes that Outlot A be <br />retained, and be extended across Lot 2 to abut Lot 1, so <br />^hat^ even Lot 1 has the potential for future access to <br />Bayside Ridge Road. Notwithstanding the goas of the County <br />in reducing County road access points, iu would seem to be a <br />rather unusual move to redirect McDowell's homestead drive­ <br />way to a point 1/4 mile west of his house. <br />However, one could argue that, at the same time Lot 2 should <br />have Outlot A for a future access to Bayside Ridge Road, <br />Lot 3 should have an outlot along the north end of Lot 2 so <br />that it has a legal outlot access to Bayside Ridge Road. <br />3. To date, staff and applicant have not discussed the <br />alternative c' the City condemning access across White's <br />property over the existing "Bayside Ridge Road". A search <br />of Council minutes for 1957-58 indicates no City review or <br />approval of R.L.S. 748 (which was filed with the County on <br />^/15/58). Such review was not required at that time for a <br />Registered Land Survey.