09-12-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1957 August 9, 1994 Page 2The subdivision results in two conforming lots. The major issue for the review of Um subdivision is the issue of access to the two new building sites via Hillside Place an unimproved platted right-of-way at 25'. Review Exhibit K. the unimproved right-of-way currently 3300 Navarre Lane as the primary access to the property and as a sccorelary ^ccss fw Bayview PliKe. If roadwav is to remain as a driveway based on the criteria set forth in Secti^ 11.33, Subd. 4 of the subdivision regulation, total number of users of this roadway must be limited to two. Review Exhibits I and J, the applicant’s realtor and potential buyer of Lots B a^ notified earlier this year of the requirements of the code regarding the use of Hillside Place ^ a private driveway The applicant who resides at 2260 Bayview Place and who owns t^ residence at 3300 Navarre Lane has agreed to eliminate the use of both accesses at Hillside Place. Review Exhibit L, the survey of 2260 Bayview Place, reveals adequ^e area for Ms. Segner to achieve access to the lower level garage within the existing rear yard. Upon your site inspection, note the location of the detached garage at 3300 Navarre Une. Thm is adequate stog distance for the relocation of an access drive to this property but it will he necessary to trim back on the existing vegetation to provide safe access at the It would al» be beneficial for Ms. Segner to trim back on the landscaping adjacent to Hdlside Place to improve siting at that intersection. Refer Exhibit D. Gustafson recommends two options concerning acce^ recommends that either the existing driveways be relocated or to 25 Hillside * a minimum 24’ paved roadway serving the four units. Given the limited !**^ **“ known desire of the applicant, staff would recommend that we agree to allow the applicant to relocate accesses as noted above. Ms Segner must first contact the Public Works Director prior to installing new driveway at 3300 Navarre Lane. As for 2260 Bayview Place, the engineer rwommends fencing or Iand«:aping Suff members advised of a need to provide not only fenemg but bennmg ^ feKing^U^ always be removed. Applicant may also have the opuon of planting trees behind the fencing as another means of providing permanent barrier. The nronertv has been assessed for sewer and two stubs have been provided at U)ts 45 and 47, refer to Exhibit H Municipal water is not available to the site and applicant is given ^ option of either extending municipal water or installing on-site wells. It is staffs understanding that both anDlicant and appli<'ant’s prospective buyers would prefer to install on-site >^lls. Refer to SbTll municip^fwater is located at the intersection of HUlside Place and Navarre There is nothing in the Orono code that requires a connection to mumcipal water when the hws 9«» nnt immediately adjacent to the properties to be served. Per the current Orono fee schedule femTTw^^ P^yntent of $225 per umt connection in addition to an $800 SAC fee (1994 fee schedule) to be paid to the MWCC.