Laserfiche WebLink
^9 File #1475 ary u, 19902 of 4The County alsoth"e acc«s Zocatlont ^«S15?4 r^eCoZ\7 .VJZ a‘a°Priate outcome X, thenera!^ra°„“%““^P« a Issues - couid be resolved.i!^e following would =.acceas Xo. bbe a«/=3—• Proposed Lot 2 ha r ' ^Pwa “ver? bVcaSse tS' "l"!''°a •>« ^OO’>yside Road frontal*’®''® aaf^af^. Road,^sement through the wh°^ ^ 3 would Sin 2's’is proposed eas^m Property. ThS via an•oposed Lot 2 hot the^nort?t« iine of <br />itlot . 2 hence the easement of <br />rr" <br />‘'>®'ease.”®b "wY^\'’”®b=V ”"®' <br />warding the use of ?m Commission hale aS ^ and <br />and 3? this easement for loSf concerns <br />^®5ral access to Lots <br />Out 1 r\4 “ nOutlot A was on- <br />G^liS <br />axned, and be evi- o*’^ty proposes thA<- necessary? <br />t even Lot 1 ®®^oss lS% hn A be <br />side Ridge Road », Potential for t I-ot 1, so <br />reducing County*the goals'^^t ®^®®®s to <br />^er unusual mole to rSff Points, it Sou Id °f County <br />to a point 1/4 tn ^®‘^^^®ot McDowell's ®®®'" to be a <br />■^/4 mile west of his house. ^°'"®stead drive- <br />•'V Q 2T f OH0 COUid <br />3 °ah“u!d Sate%r*“‘”®*®”«®‘’to ^ *»ould <br />- -3 a oVtd/r- <br />To date, staff a ^ Pidge Road. <br />^native of the ci'fhave not d-t <br />erty over the exists condemning access ^^® <br />>U"C1I „i„„te3 for 195? Rlage Ro/d <br />'58). °Loh%®evl^® ‘'"’^®'’ "®®‘*filld°w5?h “‘''' <br />‘®«a Land survey! “®® 3®<J®ired at <br />Zoning File #1475 January 11, 1990 Page 3 of 4However, if White's contention that the R.L.S. and subsequent ownerships created "landlocked" lots is correct, and if it is in the City's best planning interest to have these lots use the existing private road, then absent private easement agreements the City could consider roadway condemnation and charge the costs back to the benefitting properties.To summarize, the Planning Commission is presented with the following options;a. Approve plat as proposed with outlets for Bayside Ridge Road and Outlet A, access to Lots 2 and 3 via a 30' easement across the White property east of the wetland.b. As (a) above, but require an extension of Outlet A along <br />the north end of Lot 2 so that Lot 3 has a continuous legal <br />outlet access to Bayside Road. <br />c. As in (b) above, but extend Outlet A across the north <br />end of Lot 2 all the way across to Lot 1 as proposed by <br />Hennepin County. <br />d. Recommend approval subject to acquisition condemnation <br />of public road access over the existing private road, force <br />all lots to use "Bayside Ridge Road", keep Outlet A as <br />proposed for Lot 2's access to "BaxJ;i.de Ridge Road". <br />e. Request that applicant consider some other option. <br />Staff Recommendation - <br />If the Planning Commission can resolve the access issues, <br />staff would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision and <br />lot line rearrangement, finding that each lot exceeds the <br />required 200' in width, each lot has frontage on an acceptable <br />access road or driveway outlot, that each lot contains the <br />required 2 acres of dry buildable land, and each lot has suitable <br />house locations and tested drainfield sites. The following <br />conditions of approval are recommended if one of schemes a, b, or <br />c is chosen; <br />1. Designate Bayside Ridge Road on the plat drawings as an <br />outlot rather than a named road. This outlot road and any <br />other outlets created within the subdivision are intended to <br />remain in private ownership and be privately maintained. <br />(Since under the first three schemes noted above, no <br />additional lots will be created that access to Bayside Ridge <br />Road, it would appear that under current policy, no <br />upgrading of Bayside Ridge Road is required as part of this <br />subdivision.)