09-19-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

titude at the July e house would be are considered at rty have discussed als from Hennepin at per Exhibit Br f and that is off here are two other he sight distance most southerly of dry buildable as house* The most 0 the County Road ke to seer plus it County Road 19* There were two at regarding the long Bayside Road existing driveway adjacent to the cess pointr hence ;ement of a future :her another Area dea as to how the would be necessary tern appropriate to ion for subdivision wm I ■ ■'r- V; ^mm , siOWi' ■^ aNv<aw:r i-. • •.» -*r. Zoning File #1301 September 15r 1988 Page 3 of 4 I would also note for the record that the applicant has discussed with the ArmstrongSr who own the property to the southr their plans for development of the property. Given the location of the wetland on the Armstrong property south of White’s house# most likely development would be on the easterly 2/3 of the Armstrong property with potential to be served by a cul-de-sac extending from North Arm Lane. This would seem to be an extremely long cul-de-sac proposition# that would provide for a logical extension up to Bayside Road as the area develops. City’s Road Development Policy; At this time# the City has no defined need to create a north/south road from North Arm Drive West to Bayside Road# nor to connect to the west to County Road 19. Therefore# any development in this area would normally be with private roads constructed by private developers to the City’s private road standard. The developer would be responsible for all costs of road construction# and would presumably reflect those costs in the price of the lots when they are sold. It is likely that as the properties individually are subdivided# the City would require dedication of private outlot extensions so that a future through road would be feasible. As is current practice and policy# as evidenced by the connecting outlets on a similar type of subdivision area# namely Woodhaven/Golden View Drive/Silver Meadow Drive# the City certainly would be well served by providing the possibility for future road linkages to occur. Staff RernaiT ndation - Considering the information presented above# and considering that the subdivision application has been revised to include only creation of a lot line to divide off the existing house from the remainder of the property# and given that adequate drainfield sites have been found for the existing house# staff would recommend approval of this subdivision. Although the applicant has expressed concern that the remaining width south of the "exception" parcel is only 150’# and not meeting the 200’ standard# it ^appears unfeasible to have two dry buildable acres with the house and still maintain a 200’ width south of the exception lot# unless an unreasonable gerrymandering of the dividing line occurs. i ''M wm mm m V>, 7 • ; Zoning Fil September Page 4 of staff 1. A outlc 2. 1 requt consj of-w2 19 ai 3. C stip occu: the one appr resJ rest sert Furt priv 4. in L 5. the 6. Citi