Laserfiche WebLink
mmmmm <br />I on a public roadway or <br />mt between persons; <br />e. does not require any <br />nces or rezoning). <br />and includes a cul-de- <br />.8 ion, dedication of the <br />this proposed driveway <br />unent is centered on the <br />>r has indicated that a <br />result in the developer <br />Orchard Road 5' to 6' at <br />Ls current division that <br />sement for right-of~ <br />Orono Orchard Road (and <br />bhe defined corridor). <br />d wetlands, as shown on <br />pllcant is it this time <br />icre building sites and <br />our existing wetland <br />benefit to the City in <br />ments be granted until <br />A & B will leave all <br />house well within the <br />I <br />Ik. <br />m. <br />'i <br />% <br />pm <br />Svr <br />vr’ ■ <br />....: <br />; . <br />•• <br />m <br />Zoning Pile #1343 <br />September 21, 1988 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />DiSCIUMli( <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 />is comfortable with the concept of not requiring that a <br />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-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 setbacic for the RR-lB <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 />^OT the current subdivision, but advises the apulicant 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 Recosimendation - <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 Pee 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 />■. >. ■ <br />■ m hmm <br />EZZSTZN6 : <br />Numb< <br />Devei <br />P <br />M <br />P <br />^ f