Laserfiche WebLink
, ., <br />,: <br />Zoning File 11475 <br />November 16, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />3. The applicant is proposing a north/south division line to <br />create two building sites. The applicant noted that the <br />ridge line and location of drainfield sites suggests that <br />the proposed house locations are centrally located within <br />each proposed lot, and that an east/west lot line would <br />result in less functional lots due to the sJope of the north <br />half of the lot. In order to provide inter:i.or access to Lot <br />2, applicant proposes a 25' outlot to the proposed "Bayside <br />Ridge Road". Applicant would prefer to serve Lot 2 with a <br />separate driveway from Bayside Road, but it is questionable <br />whether the County wi 11 approve an access site on Ba.yside <br />Road, especially if an alternate access is feasible. <br />Rememher that Orono Code requires that all newly created <br />lots be served by interior roads whenever possible. <br />4. Applicant has provide0 a 25' corridor for what is shown on <br />the plat as "Bayside Ridge Road". This corridor generally <br />parallels the private driveway that serves four existing <br />residences. Although not shown on the survey, the existing <br />driveway location is west of this outlot, on the Rezabek <br />property (see Exhibit G). Staff would anticipate that an <br />additional 25' outlot could someday be added to the west of <br />y',~is proposed outlot, for private road purposes. <br />' <br />Primary and alternate drainfield sites have been tested in <br />each of the proposed new lots. The Hayssen property has <br />alternate drainfield sites to the south and west of the <br />existing system. The McDowell residence at 4105 Bayside <br />Road exceeds 5 acres in area and appears co ~ontain a number <br />of possible drainfield sites. Altern:;te ~ite testing is not <br />required. <br />All of the sites tested require mo1:nd systems. <br />6. The neighboring property owner to the north and west, Robert <br />White has challenged the validity of the easement across his <br />property out to Bayside Road ( see Exhibit I). The City <br />Attorney has prelimin:;rily reviewed the concerns and has <br />suggested that, sin~e Minnesota Title insured the access <br />easement on file, it would likely be up to Minnesota Title <br />to take whate~er &teps are necessary to provide access to <br />the affectGd properties. The City Attorney advises that any <br />approv:;l of the proposed subdivision be conditioned 11pon the <br />aprlicant providing suitable documentation that the access <br />issue has been resolved, prior to filing of the division.