Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1976 <br />October 7. 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />the Dublic street Lot widtli at the Bayside lot line is only a 179’ at the 100 setback. Lot 2 has <br />an unusual shape with an access corridor at Bayside at 237’. Refer to your prelminary plans, <br />note the typical lot and building envelope defined on that survey is incorrect. This is a 5 acre <br />zone not 2 acre. The front and rear setbacks are 100’ and the side 50 Note proposed building <br />site shown on Lot 2 does not conform to required rear yard setback. Structure must be moved <br />60’ south to conform to the 100’ setback. <br />Staff has had preliminaiy discussions with Doug Mattson of the Hennepin County Department <br />of Transportation who advises that they would approve accesses to both lots via Bayside Road <br />because McCulley Road receives far more traffic than County Road 84. Mattson o^e again <br />advised staff of the County ’s desire to have the City take over County Road 84. Members may <br />remember in the early review of the K-P Properties subdivision to the immediate south, the City <br />did not intend to grant additional right-of-way for Bayside Road. Martin <br />possibility of graLng additional right-of-way at the intersection of bounty Road 84 a^ <br />McCulley for a future upgrading and defining of a turn lane onto McCulley Road, <br />reviewed the accesses to the proposed lots with the City Engineer. Gustafson would approve <br />access off of McCulley Road if fiiture owner so desires. Mattson as well as Gusufson report <br />that access to Lot 2 would have to be at the very western boundary at Baystde because of <br />location of the crest of the hill. <br />Weekman s memo. Exhibit E. conftrms suitable soils for on-site septic <br />Weekman s memo did not note a tteed to stake off the tested sepuc sites but C^^ <br />the septic sites be staked off prior to any land alteration. There were wells on the <br />previous ski operation. Applicant should provide a status report on whether the wells have been <br />appropriately sealed and if any are intended for fiiture residential use. Wells located within Lot <br />I have not been shown on preliminary plans. If a well is to be used, the location must s own <br />SO that Weekman can confirm required 75 ’ setback. <br />A bam on Lot 2 has not been shown on the preliminary survey. The bam is old and should be <br />demolished as a condition of subdivision approval. <br />Gustafson asked for detailed grading and drainage plans and development of driwways •« <br />building sites. These plans must be submitted upon application for buiMuig pern <br />enS s approval. Doug Maitson of Hennepin County DOT has advised that they will submit <br />a iener before Planning Commission ’s public hearing. Members will receive copies either in <br />a later submittal or at your meeting. <br />The best way to visit this site is at the existing gravel driveway that currently serves proposed <br />Lot 2 at Bayside Road, review staff’s sketch. Exhibit F. Park and view the beautiful vistas to <br />the north.