The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#1475 PC memoTo: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: November 16, 1989 Subject: #1475 John McDowell & Charles Hayssen, 4045/4105/4135 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision -Public Hearing Zoning District -LR-lA, Single family lakeshore residential, unsewered Application -Lot 1ine rearrangement and subdivision to create one additional building site from three existing tax parcels. List of Exhibits Exhibit A -Application Exhibit B -Plat Map & Area Map Exhibit C -Property Owners List Exhibit D -Proposed Plat Drawings Exhibit E -Survey with Locations of Existing & Propose~ Houses & Driveways Exhibit F -Survey Noting Proposed Lot Areas Exhibit G -Map of Area Property Ownership Exhibit H -Air Photo Exhibit I -Letter from Applicant's Attorney Re: Access Exhibit J -Letter to Hayssen dated 7/28/89 ,, 1.:: -Lt-:r11z r,~,.,1-, i,,,-,,T• '··,'/. Pertinent Facts - 1. This proposed plat accomplishes two purposes: 2. A) Rearrangement of lot 1 ine between the Hayssen and McDowell homestead properties. B) The remaining 6+ acre portion of Tract A, RLS ft748, is being split into two 3+ acre building sites. Note that, per Exhibit E, Hayssen's pre-existing north lot line is approximately 22' from the house constructed in 1988. The setback approved on the site plan for the building permit for the house indicated a setback of 34'. The property owner later pivoted the house around the n0rtheast corner of the garage and made arrangements with McDowell to purchase an additional piece of property, but this dio not come to staff's attention until after the house was finished, per the letter of 7/28/89 (Exhibit J). The proposed subdivision leaves a side setback of approximately 100'. The rearrangement also places Hayssen's septic system completely within his property boundaries, while maintaining the appropriate setbacks. ~/ .' •I. L ,,,.. r / 1·-. e: ,,, ( I \.JI J I.., / ,': . ' -. ,~ I ,(. , ., ,: Zoning File 11475 November 16, 1989 Page 2 of 4 3. The applicant is proposing a north/south division line to create two building sites. The applicant noted that the ridge line and location of drainfield sites suggests that the proposed house locations are centrally located within each proposed lot, and that an east/west lot line would result in less functional lots due to the sJope of the north half of the lot. In order to provide inter:i.or access to Lot 2, applicant proposes a 25' outlot to the proposed "Bayside Ridge Road". Applicant would prefer to serve Lot 2 with a separate driveway from Bayside Road, but it is questionable whether the County wi 11 approve an access site on Ba.yside Road, especially if an alternate access is feasible. Rememher that Orono Code requires that all newly created lots be served by interior roads whenever possible. 4. Applicant has provide0 a 25' corridor for what is shown on the plat as "Bayside Ridge Road". This corridor generally parallels the private driveway that serves four existing residences. Although not shown on the survey, the existing driveway location is west of this outlot, on the Rezabek property (see Exhibit G). Staff would anticipate that an additional 25' outlot could someday be added to the west of y',~is proposed outlot, for private road purposes. ' Primary and alternate drainfield sites have been tested in each of the proposed new lots. The Hayssen property has alternate drainfield sites to the south and west of the existing system. The McDowell residence at 4105 Bayside Road exceeds 5 acres in area and appears co ~ontain a number of possible drainfield sites. Altern:;te ~ite testing is not required. All of the sites tested require mo1:nd systems. 6. The neighboring property owner to the north and west, Robert White has challenged the validity of the easement across his property out to Bayside Road ( see Exhibit I). The City Attorney has prelimin:;rily reviewed the concerns and has suggested that, sin~e Minnesota Title insured the access easement on file, it would likely be up to Minnesota Title to take whate~er &teps are necessary to provide access to the affectGd properties. The City Attorney advises that any approv:;l of the proposed subdivision be conditioned 11pon the aprlicant providing suitable documentation that the access issue has been resolved, prior to filing of the division. Zoning File #1475 November 16, 1989 Page 3 of 4 Mr. White has indicated verbally to City staff that he does not intend to cooperate ~n validating the existing easement, and would prefer that the new parcels in addition to existing residences at 4135 and 4165 be served through some other corridor. If the applicant ultimately fails to gain access over the existing driveway, a revised subdivision would lir.ely have to be reviewed by the City. Discussion - RLS #748 was filed in 1958. Some time in the late 1950s or early 1960s, the residence at 4185 Bayside Road was constructed, along with the driveway within Tract F, which at that time was the Tearse property, Mr. White granted the Tearses an easement across White's property to get from Tract F to Bayside Road. Some time after that, Tearse granted an easement (over the White property easement) to E.W. Spencer to serve his properties known as Tracts A, Band C. Mr. White claims that Tearse had no right to grant the additional easement over White's property. Staff discussed with the applicant early in the subdivision process that the City would require a 25' outlet for the existing private road. It is anticipated that at some future date, the additional 25' to create a standard 50' private road outlot, would be dedicated from the adjacent property. Applicant was advised that the City would require interior access for both Lots 2 and 3, hence applicant is providing an additional Outlet A along the north end of Lot 3, to serve Lot 2. The west line of Lot 2 then becomes the front line and the lot width standard is met. The alternative would have been to make Lot 2 a flag lot. Staff Recommendation - The applicant is providing a private driveway outlot adjacent to the area of the existing access road. Because this is a two lot subdivision, City code does not require construction of a new private road. Both new lots abut an interior access road as required by code. Each new lot contains in excess of the required two acres, each lot exceeds the required 200' in width, and each lot has suitable house locations and tested drainfield sites. The lot line rearrangemer>t incorporated into this plat leaves adequate setbacks and potential for septic system expansion as required by City codes. Zoning File 11475 November 16, 1989 Page 4 of 4 Based on the above, staff would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision based on the following conditions: 1. On the pl at drawings, Bayside Ridge Road shal 1 be designated as a private road outlet, "Outlot B". Outlet B is intended to remain in private ow11ership, and be p":"i vately maintained. Because this plat effectively only creates a fourth building site where three building sites already existed, no upgrading of the private road is required as part of this subdivision. 2. Lots 2 and 3 shall be served by private access driveways via Outlets A and B. (Does Planning Commission feel that there is any justification to allow access for Lot 2 directly to Bayside Road? No word from Hennepin County on their position as of this writing.) 3. Standard Park Dedication Fees shal 1 be paid for Lots 2 and 3. 4. Standard Drainage & Utility Easements to be shown on the plat drawings. S. Prior to filing of the subdivision, applicant shall satisfy the City At~orney that proper legal access is provided to the property.