Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1475 <br />November 16r 1989 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />3. The applicant is proposing a north/south division line to <br />create two building sites. The applicant noted that the <br />ridge line and location of drainfield sites suggests that <br />the proposed house locations are centrally located within <br />each proposed lotr and that an east/west lot li:.w would <br />result in less functional lots due to the slope of the north <br />half of the lot. Ir order to provide interior access to Lot <br />2, applicant proposes a 25' outlot to the proposed "Bayside <br />Ridge Road". Applicant would prefer to serve Lot 2 with a <br />separate driveway from Bayside Roadr but it is questionable <br />whether the County will approve an access site on Bayside <br />Roadf especially if an alternate access is feasible. <br />Remember that Orono Code requires that all newly created <br />lots be served by interior roads whenever possible. <br />4. Applicant has provided a 25' corridor for what is jhown on <br />the plat as "Bayside Ridge Road". This corridor generally <br />parallels the private driveway that serves four existing <br />residences. Although not sho%«i on the survey, the existing <br />driveway location is west of this outlot. on the Rezabek <br />property (see Exhibit G). Staff would anticipate that an <br />additional 25' outlot could someday be added to the west of <br />this proposed outlot, for private road purposes. <br />5. Primary and alternate drainfield sites have been tested in <br />each of the proposed new lots. The Hayssen property has <br />alternate drainfield sites to the south and west of the <br />existing system. The McDowell residence at 4105 Bayside <br />Road exceeds 5 acres in area and appears to contain a number <br />of possible drainfield sites. Alternate site testing is not <br />required. <br />All of the sites tested require mound systems. <br />6. The neighboring property owner to the north and west, Robert <br />White has challenged the validity of the easement across his <br />property out to Bayside Road (see Exhibit I). The City <br />Attorney has preliminarily reviewed the concerns and has <br />suggested that, since Minnesota Title Insured the access <br />easement on file, it would likely be up to Minnesota Title <br />to take whatever steps are necessary to provide access to <br />the affected properties. The City Attorney advises that any <br />approval of the proposed subdivision be conditioned upon the <br />applicant providing suitable documentation that the access <br />issue has been resolved, prior to filing of the division.