Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1475 <br />February 22, 1990 <br />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 outlots created within the <br />subdivision are inten3ed to remain in private ownership <br />and be privately maintained. (Since under the first <br />three schemes noted above, no additional lots will be <br />created that access to Hayside Ridge Road, it would <br />appear that under current policy, no upgrading of <br />Rayside Ridge Road is required as part of this <br />subdivision.) <br />B) Lots 2 and 3 shall he 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 Fasements to be shown <br />on the plat drawings. <br />F) 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 roaM, not from an easement further <br />east directly to Sayside 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 3, 1990. However, the legal <br />issues in makirg tfis access viable could be expensive and time <br />consuming to resolve, and remember that the City does not have an <br />underlying rcid and utility easement for the existing private <br />easement roael <br />Staff Recowarendation - <br />The Ccuncil's options are as follows: <br />1. (;rant prel iminar / plat approval per the P1 anr.ing <br />Com..O -;sion recommendat ion for both the l of l ine <br />rearrangement and the lot split, per the conditions noted <br />ab, ve (resolution atl a, hed). <br />