Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1498 February 15, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Gaffron cautions that the majority of the site is in%+ slopes and may present problems if mound systems are required. Lots 2, 3 and 4 dry buildable area must be exclusive of designated wetland areas. Access is the crucial issue for this subdivision review. Staff has been advised that the applicant does not wish a road extension to the south, nor to the west. Staff would ask members to review Exhibits A and F. Exhibit B should be familiar to Planning Commission members as it was used during the review of the White subdivision application in late 1988 (preliminary subdivision approval expired 9/89). The County found access to the property to be extremely difficult. The only acceptable access to the site was at the western edge of the property on Bayside Road. Access from North Shore Drive was not feasible to the White property. Tf the White property is to be subdivided at some future date, it would make good planning sense to acquire access to the White property through a we:t corridor from the subject property. Please review of Exhibit F, a conceptual road plan for this immediate area. Tt will be staffs strong recommendation to take a future linking access corridor to Lhe south of the property to j(in in a future network of roadways linking North Shore Drive a North Arm Drive. Applicant need only provide future road outl(,ts to the west and south. The plat itself may be a cul-de-sac road. Planning Commission should provide directives to the applicant concerning the following issues: 1. Future access corridors: A) to the west; B) to the south. 2. Will the City allow owner of Lot 7 (previously Lot 1), Bayview Farms to retain access onto Bayside Road. 3. Resolve of structure referred to as pole barn: 75', 150' or will it remain as merely a storage structure? Tf it remains as a storage structure, it must be 50' in from the plat road. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.