Laserfiche WebLink
C0UNCIUM££TINQ <br />SEP 2 8 <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />f 'IV Of <br />DATE: September 25, 1998 <br />ITEM NO. <br />Department Approval: <br />Name Michael P. Gaffron <br />Title Senior Planning Coordinator <br />Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description: #2412 Steve White. 4355 Bayside Road - Class I Subdivision (Renewal) <br />Resolution <br />Zoning District:RR-1 A, 5 acre rural residential (north of Bayside Road) <br />RR-IB, 2 acre rural residential (south of Bayside Road, north of quarter <br />section line) <br />LR-1 A, 2 acre lakeshore residential (south of quarter section line) <br />se. <br />Summary of Request <br />This is a renewal of applicant's 1997 approval to split this 55 acre property into two parcels to create <br />one additional building site. Parcel A, the new building site, is proposed at 28.3 acres in total area <br />of which 21.1 acres is dry buildable. Parcel B, with the existing house, will be 26.8 acres in area of <br />which 21.1 acres is dry buildable. <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Resolution <br />B - Memo and Exhibits of 9/17/98 <br />Discussion <br />This subdivision was proposed by applicant in order to allow construction of a new residence on the <br />westerly half of the property. The original Council approval was granted in October 1997 and <br />expired in April 1998. The approval expired prior to filing of the subdivision because the applicant <br />was hesitant to provide the required Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland adjacent <br />to North Arm bay. His issue was (is) that the standard Easement language would preclude him from <br />even applying for a permit to construct a dock to get to Lake Minnetonka, which his property abuts. <br />Staff has reviewed our standard easement language (see Exhibit G of September 17 memo) with the <br />City Attorney and we have concluded that applicant's requested changes would change the scope of <br />the easement, which requires Council approval. Applicant's attorney had originally suggested two <br />changes, neither of which were acceptable to staff. The first would have added a condition G as <br />follows: