My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-26-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
02-26-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2024 10:39:24 AM
Creation date
9/6/2024 10:31:34 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
375
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Zoning File #1475 February 22, 1990 Page 2 of 3 <br />A) Designate Bayside Ridge Road on the plat drawings <br />as an outlot rather than a named road. This outlot <br />road and any other outlets created within the <br />subdivision are intended to remain in private ownership <br />and be privately maintained. (Since under the first <br />three schentes noted abovef no additional lots will be <br />created that access to Bayside Ridge Road, it would <br />appear that under current policy, no upgrading of <br />Bayside Ridge Road is required as part of this <br />subdivision.) <br />B) Lots 2 and 3 shall be served by private access <br />driveway/easement through the White property to the <br />north per the recommendation of Hennepin County. <br />C) Standard Park Dedication Fees shall be paid for <br />Lots 2 and 3. <br />D) Standard Drainage & Utility Easements to be shown <br />on the plat drawings. <br />E) Prior to filing of the subdivision, applicant shall <br />satisfy the City Attorney that proper legal access <br />through the White property is provided. <br />F) Setbacks and lot line designations for proposed <br />Lots 2 and 3 are as shown on attached exhibits. <br />In their minority vote, Cohen and Kelley indicated that <br />access is the issue, and they felt access to the 6.6 acre parcel <br />should come from the existing road, not from an easement further <br />east directly to Bayside Road. They felt that the City should <br />take whatever steps are necessary to have the two new 3.3 acre <br />lots access over the existing private road. This concept is <br />strongly supported by the Hennepin County Department of Public <br />Works in their letter of January 3f 1990. However/ the legal <br />issues in making this access viable could be expensive and time <br />consuming to resolve^ and remember that the City does not have an <br />underlying road and utility easement for the existing private <br />easement road. <br />Staff RecoBORendation - <br />The Council's options are as follows; <br />1. Grant preliminary plat approval per the Planning <br />Commission recommendation for both the lo . line <br />rearrangement and the lot split, per the conditions noted <br />above (resolution attached). <br />L.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.