04-27-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Files #1115 & #1i16 March 11, 1987 Page 3 C. Cul-de-sac Dedication. Please review Exhibit G, staff's long term concept of how a future public or private right-of-way would likely be configurated if "Lydiard Road" was ever required to be upgraded. Note that by definition (Section 6.01 Subd. 2, Subd. 3) "Lydiard Road" is a private road, not a private driveway, but does not meet many of the private road standards of Section 6.06 or Section 11.33, and it exceeds the limit of 10 residences for service by a private road per the Community Management Plan, Chapter 7, p. 16 (Transportation Plan). For these reasons, staff feels that there is a potentia L that at some future date the City may be compelled to require an upgrading of "Lydiard Road" to private road standards, i.e. a 50' right-of-way and 24-28' paved width. Staff suggests it is appropriate to require that a portion of cul-de-sac for private road purposes Ye dedicated on the plat at this time, as shown on Exhibit E. Tnis cul-de-sac location wi 1 1 have a re 1ative I minor of fect on the 5 ad jacent properties as compared to a major effect if Located entirely within one property, and wi1.1 sti11 be at least 26' from the wetland to the northeast. D. Easterly Wetland. The pond/wetland east of the existing house was not called out on the previous plat, but does exist within the property. Staff recommends that a flowage and conservation easement be granted over this wetland, and be shown on the plat. E. Septic Sites. Primary and alternate drainfieldd sites were previously tested for the westerly lot, and these are still suitable for a new residence, although applicant may wish to find additional sites closer to the proposed house - this is applicant's prerogative. However, in 1980 we did not require that an alternate site for the existing residence be tested. it is appropriate that such testing for the existing house be required at this time. P. Lake Access. Applicant wishes to build his new home cn the westerly lot and sell the existing house, but wishes to privide the existing house with a walking easement to the lake and perhaps to use the trail system within the woods. Section 11.03.66, states that "... creation of a ... private easement for any purpose" falls within the definition of a Class I Subdivision, and hence is permitted by metes and bounds subdivision process, but in effect does require City subdivision approval. Staff would suggest for discussion purposes that a 10' walking easement to the lakeshore may be reasonable in this case as long as it does not grant riparian rights or dock rights to the inland property. Does Planning Commission have any objections to this, in light of the fact that the 2 lots as currently configured both have lakeshore riparian access rights?