Laserfiche WebLink
10-3458 � <br /> 12 April 2010 <br /> Page 6 of 6 <br /> Access: Regarding the configuration of proposed Lot 1, staff recommends revising the property <br /> lines to account for an access outlot (1.6± acres) and a back lot (4± dry acres) so the lot will <br /> conform to City Code requirements for frontage and access. A 30-foot wide outlot is the <br /> minimum which would be required to access a back lot. The applicant is creating a 50-foot wide <br /> corridor to accommodate the existing driveway. This 50-foot wide corridor/outlot opens the <br /> potential in the future to create a private road to access 2+ future lots. The Commission may <br /> want to address the potential to create two private roads with this development. The City has <br /> . not yet received Hennepin County's comments on the currently proposed plat, however in <br /> previous reviews the comments have consisted of the following: limiting the site to one access <br /> point on Old Crystal Bay Road/County 84; clearing of the existing vegetation, fencing and pillars <br /> for increased visibility; and dedication of 50 feet of right-of-way 33' plus 17' (requiring the <br /> additional 17 feet of right-of-way to accommodate future County trails). <br /> Sewer: Further development of the property may utilize City sewer. Currently the property is <br /> located within the MUSA, however it does not have direct access to sewer. There are a couple <br /> different options for bringing sewer to the site in the future— Little Orchard Way or Farview Lane <br /> — but neither of those are proposed now. The developer may want to provide the necessary <br /> easements for future sewer with the platting of this property. <br /> Guest House CUP: The Planning Commission should discuss what happens to the guest house <br /> conditional use permit following subdivision approval. Resolutions 1910 and 3072 regarding the • <br /> guest house and future subdivision of the property are included as an exhibit. Does this <br /> subdivision trigger the need for a new CUP application? Should the guest house CUP be <br /> discontinued? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: • <br /> 1) Lot 1 be converted to a back lot with an access outlot; <br /> 2) Compliance with the City Engineer's recommendations. <br /> Developer should address County Engineer's comments. Prior to submittal of a Final Plat <br /> application the developer shall submit: <br /> 1) MCWD approved wetland delineations and functional assessment for all wetlands on the <br /> property; <br /> 2) A conservation design plan which meets the requirements of the Conservation Design <br /> regulations for review, approval and implementation; and <br /> 3) Any additional requirements established within the preliminary plat resolution. <br /> Planning Commission should: <br /> 1) Discuss the staff recommendation; <br /> 2) Discuss the merits of obtaining a ghost plat; <br /> 3) Determine how to address the existing buildings; <br /> 4) Determine an appropriate average lakeshore setback line for Lot 1; <br /> 5) Discuss whether or not the developer should provide easements for future sewer service; <br /> 6) Make a determination on the guest house CUP; and finally <br /> 7) Make a motion approving or denying the application. <br />