10-17-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Zoning File #1976 October 7, 1994 Page 2 the public street IxH width at the Bayside lot line is only a 179’ at the 100' setback Lot 2 has an unusual shape with an access corridor at Bayside at 237’. Refer to your prelm'inary’ plans, note the typical lot and building envelope defined on that suncy is incorrect. This is a 5 acre zone not 2 acre. The front aral rear setbacks arc 100* and the side 50’. Note proposed building site shown on 2 dees not conform to required rear yard setback. Structure must t>e moved 60’ south to conform to the 100’ setback. Staff has had preliminary discussions with Doug Mattson of the Hennepin County Department of Transpi>rtation wh<» advises that they would approve accesses to both lots via Bayside Road because McCulley Rtud receives far more traffic than County Road 84. Matts<>n once again advised staff of the County ’s desire to have the City take over County Road 84. Membets may remember in the early review of the K-P Properties subdivision to the immediate south, the City did not intend to grant additional right-of-way for Bayside Riud. Mattson did advise of the possibility of granting additional right-of-way at the intersection of County Road 84 and McCulley for a future upgrading and defining of a turn lane onto McCulley Road. Staff also reviewed the acces^-s to the proposed lots w ith the City linginccr. Gustafson would approve access o.f of McCulley Road it future owner so des’rcs. Mattson as well as Gustafson report that access to la)t 2 would have to be at the very western boundary at Bay side because of IcK'ation of the crest of the hill. Weekman’s memo. Exhibit E. confinns suitable scnls for on-site septic treatment areas. Weekman’s memo did not note a need to stake off the tested septic sites, but City will ask that the septic site'- be staked ott prior to any land alteration. There were wells on the sits friun the previous ski ('peration. Applicant should provide a status report on whether the wells have been apprtipriately sealed and if any are intended for future residential use. Wells located within Lot 1 have not been shown on preliminary plans. If a well is to be used, the Kveation must be shown so that Weekrnan can confirm required 75’ setback. A barn on Lot 2 has ntn been shown im the preliminary survey. The barn is old and should be demolished as a cH>nditi(^n of subdivision approval. Gustafson asked for detailed grading and drainage plans and development ot driveways to building sites. These plans must be submitted upon application tor building permit for engineer’s approval. Doug Mattson of Hennepin County DOT has advised that they will .submit a letter before Planning Commission ’s public hearing. Members will receive copies either in a later submittal or at your meeting. The best way to visit this site is at the existing gravel driveway that currently serves proposed l^l 2 at Bayside Road, review staff s sketch, F..xhibit F. Park and view the beautiful vistas to the north.