Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1301 <br />September 15, 1988 <br />Page 2 of t <br />Note a so that per Planning Commission's apparent attitude at the July <br />meeting, th t a single division just to split off the house would be <br />received in a -tore positive light than if additiinal lots are considered at <br />this time. A . rographic map has not been provided. <br />Access Sites and Area Development: <br />The applicant and a potential developer of the property have discussed <br />the potential development of this property with officials from Hennepin <br />County regarding feasible road access sites. Note that per Exhibit E, <br />there is only one good access site for this property, and that is off <br />Bayside Road at the northeast corner of the property. There are two other <br />access locations that strictly speaking would meet the sight distance <br />requirements, due to hills and valleys in the road. The most southerly of <br />those two points would encroach into the two acres of dry buildable as <br />necessary for the proposed lot around the existing house. The most <br />northerly of the two access points is much closer to the County Road <br />19/County Road 84 intersection than the County would like to see, plus it <br />would involve a major revision of the right turn lane on County Road 19. <br />Those are the only sites feasible for this property. There were two <br />other access sites for a potential road that were looked at regarding the <br />development of the area. The first is about 700' east along Bayside Road <br />and the other would be approximately 280' south of the existing driveway <br />for the white house. The access point south of and adjacent to the <br />existing driveway was determined to be a very unsafe access point, hence <br />would not be a reasonable location to consider for placement of a future <br />road. <br />Given the above information, staff has put together another Area <br />Development Diaqram that hopefully gives a conceptual idea as to how the <br />neighboring properties might develop. <br />It appears that no dedication for private roadway would be necessary <br />in the area of the existing house. It would then seem appropriate to <br />require future roadway dedication only upon an application for subdivision <br />of the parcel remaining after the house is divided off. <br />