Laserfiche WebLink
n a public roadway Of <br />; between persons; <br />does not require any <br />Bs or rezonlng). <br />id Includes a cul-de- <br />on, dedication of the <br />ils proposed driveway <br />nt Is centered on the <br />has Indicated that a <br />suit In the developer <br />chard Road 5* to 6' at <br />current division that <br />ment for rlght-of- <br />rono Orchard Road (and <br />i defined corridor). <br />etlands, as sho%m on <br />.cant la it this time <br />e building sites and <br />r existing wetland <br />neflt to the City In <br />tits be granted until <br />& B will leave all <br />)use well within the <br />I <br />li <br />m ..V <br />Zoning Pile 11343 <br />September 27, 1988 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />The applicant has absolutely no plans to further subdivide this <br />property Into two acre lots at this time. In reviewing the access <br />situation, staff Is comfortable with the concept of not requiring that a <br />private road be platted at this time as long as the proposed driveway <br />easement over Parcel B In favor of Parcel A Is a non-excluslve easement, <br />such that a future buyer of Parcel A would have the right to subdivide and <br />have each newly created lot access through Parcel B. That easement should <br />Include language that would allow the owner of Parcel A to develop a <br />private roadway to the City's private roadway standards within the 50' <br />easement corridor. Additionally, this easement would have to specify that <br />If a single new residence Is built on Parcel B prior to a future <br />subdivision, that residence will have to be located a distance from the <br />easement equal to or greater than the required front setback for the RR*-1B <br />zoning district. <br />Staff would additionally request as a condition of approval of this <br />division that the proposed driveway access easement be drafted and <br />submitted to the City by the applicant's attorney for staff review to <br />Insure that the necessary wording Is In place such that Parcel A will not <br />be construed as being land*-locked. <br />As noted above, this property contains a number of designated wetland <br />areas. Staff would recommend that no Flowage and Conservation Easements be <br />required for the current subdivision, but advises the applicant that If <br />either of Parcels A or B Is divided In the future. It Is likely such <br />Flowage and Conservation Easements will need to be granted. <br />Staff Rer n—ci niTatlon - <br />Based on the above noted concerns being adequately addressed, staff <br />would recommend approval of the metes and bounds subdivision for Edmund <br />W.F. Rydell as proposed. Staff would recommend further that septic testing <br />not be required at this time. Staff also recommends that since Parcel B <br />could be sold as separate building site, that the Park Fee of $100.00 per <br />the current fee schedule should be paid with this subdivision, noting that <br />the Park Fee paid at this time would be credited towards Park Fees for a <br />future subdivision per Section 11.62, Subdivision 8. <br />m : <br />% ' ■ <br />y <br />■•Y <br />i' <br />■' <br />A <br />wm <br />Ala. <br />f. <br />•iri <br />CITT OF ORO <br />FROPBRTT U3 <br />Site Addr'es <br />Property Zd <br />Please chec <br />Attach lega <br />jkPPLicjyrr <br />Name ^ <br />Addres <br />ONNBR (If d <br />Name <br />Addres <br />(atta <br />RUSTING LA <br />Number <br />Develo <br />Presen <br />Presen <br />PROPOSAL <br />NU] <br />Pr< <br />Mil <br />Pr<