10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on a public roadway or It between persona; does not require any ces or rezoning). and includes a cul-de- lion, dedication of the this proposed driveway Rent is centered on the : has indicated that a esult in the developer irchard Road 5* to 6* at s current division that lement for rlght-of- Orono Orchard Road (and he defined corridor). wetlands, as shown on llcant is it this time :re building sites and our existing wetland benefit to the City in lents be granted until & B will leave all ouse well within the Zoning File #1343 September 27, 1988 Page 3 of 3 DiSCOMiCHI * The applicant has absolutely no plans to further subdivide this property into two acre lots at this time. In reviewing the access situation, staff is comfortable with the concept of not requiring that a road be platted at this time as long as the proposed driveway easement over Parcel B in favor of Parcel A is a non-exclusive easement, such that a future buyer of Parcel A would have the right to subdivide and have each newly created lot access through Parcel B. That easement should include language that would allow the owner of Parcel A to develop a private roadway to the City's private roadway standards within the 50* easement corridor. Additionally, this easement would have to specify that if a single new residence is built on Parcel B prior to a future subdivision, that residence will have to be located a distance from the easement equal to or greater than the required front setbacJc for the RR-lB zoning district. additionally request as a condition of approval of this division that the proposed driveway access easement be drafted and submitted to the City by the applicant's attorney for staff review to insure that the necessary wording is in place such that Parcel A will not be construed as being land-loc)ced. As noted above, this property contains a number of designated wetland areas. Staff would recommend that no Flowage and Conservation Easements be required for the current subdivision, but advises the applicant that if either of Parcels A or B is divided in the future, it is lilcely such Flowage and Conservation Easements will need to be granted. Staff Repnimsf ndation - Based on the above noted concerns being adequately addressed, staff would recommend approval of the metes and bounds subdivision for Edmund W.F. Rydell as proposed. Staff would recommend further that septic testing not be required at this time. Staff also recommends that since Parcel B could be sold as separate building site, that the Park Pee of $100.00 per the current fee schedule should be paid with this subdivision, noting that the ParJc Fee paid at this time would be credited towards Par)c Fees for a future subdivision per Section 11.62, Subdivision 8. IK •V.. m fp- ‘i I •••:■■ CITT OF OI ntOPBRTr ] Site Addrc Property 1 Please ch« Attach -lec APPLZCAHT Name Addre ONHBR (if ■ v.-j.Name Addre (att EXISTING L Numbe Devel< m Presei . Presei PROPOSAL Pi Mi Pr