Laserfiche WebLink
^ %' <br />on a public roadway or <br />it between persona; <br />. does not require any <br />ees or rezoning). <br />and inciudes a cul-de- <br />ion » dedication of the <br />:hls proposed driveway <br />lent is centered on the <br />' has indicated that a <br />esult in the developer <br />rchard Road 5* to 6* at <br />current division that <br />ement for right-of- <br />)rono Orchard Road (and <br />le defined corridor). <br />wetlandsr as shown on <br />Licant is it this time <br />re building sites and <br />ur existing wetland <br />enefit to the City in <br />ents be granted until <br />& B will leave all <br />)use well within the <br />I <br />i. <br />mm <br />\ <br />P - <br />... <br />pm:'- <br />I- <br />'Ml <br />* <br />Zoning Pile #1343 <br />September 27, 1988 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />Dieeiuiei( <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 D in favor of Parcel A is a non-exclusive 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 setbac)c for the RR-IB <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 liJcely such <br />Flowage and Conservation Easements will need to be granted. <br />Staff Re*[ation - <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 Par)c Fee of $100.00 per <br />the current fee schedule should be paid with this subdivision, noting that <br />the Par)c Fee paid at this time would be credited towards Park Fees for a <br />future subdivision per Section 11.62, Subdivision 8. <br />1; <br />mm <br />14""' 1 <br />CITT OF OB <br />FROPBRTZ X <br />Site Addr'e <br />i ^ ^ <br />Property Z <br />Please che <br />Attach leg <br />APPLZCAflT- <br />Name <br />Addre <br />ONHBR (if <br />Name <br />Addre <br />(att <br />EZISTIN6 L <br />Nufflbe <br />Devel' <br />Prese: <br />'■i <br />• I.-: <br />Ni <br />P: <br />N: <br />mm: