03-19-1984 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

discussed t subdivision inal. The ts, however, at no traffic from the City ul-de-sac roads partnership idea for reasons e point whereby uld be served the reasons approval of T would not be I was made to the City Attor- :ome of that le partners, 'esolution. In ilth, safety and he City Council. A plan was sub- and planning originally sub- f the applicant originally d that the appli cision through liminate the d access. That id explicitly council to recon- ng reasons: ie perimeter become double nner’s mind : •!;..i ..j Y* * - 1 m • .vAi 0- i * Y i- .m.. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council The Members of the Planning Commission Mrs. Jeanne Mabusth/Page 3 that double facing lots are to be avoided at any cost. The reasons are not solely economic. Lake Minnetonka Homes, Inc. consulted Mr. George W. Orning on this concept plan. Mr. Orning is a former professor of urban geography at the University of Minnesota. Most recently he was a committee member of the National Residential Council of the Urban Land Institute. He feels that the city's position on this concept plan is “unfortunate." The idea of internally servicing lots in any subdivision is acceptable only if the traffic on the perimeter streets is such that a curb cut would produce a traffic safety hazard. As previously stated, the City Engineer does not feel that there is a traffic safety hazard. Among his other comments are: A) Double facing lots produce a safety hazard for the residents of those lots. The hazard is created by both the front yard and the back yard bordering on streets. There is no “back yard" in which children can play away from any traffic. B) Additional roadway means additional traffic. By having double facing lots, a developer is nearly doubling the amount of roadway required to service what could have been serviced by the original perimeter roadway. C) Mr. Orning feels that double facing lots are detrimental to the development of neighborhood community spirit. In the city's document: A resolution denying Lake Minnetonka Homes, Inc.'s application for subdivision. Findings of Fact, (hereinafter referred to as “Resolution"), Paragraph #16 and Paragraph #17 reads as follows: 16. A sense of community is lost v/hen the proposed plat divides or separates 13 lots from the 27 interior served lots. 17.The Police Chief, Mel Kilbo, has advised that with the loss of community by the physical platting or separation of properties, there is also a lessening in the degree of familiarity amongst neighborning property owners and a de crease in a neighbor's responsibility for the protection of surrounding properties. Contrary to Paragraph 16 and Mr. Kilbo's opinion, Mr. Orning points out that the back yard is where community spirit is developed. By having double facing lots, a developer is producing the exact effect that Mr. Kilbo speaks against. By having double facing lots, the perimeter lots are separated from the neigh bors by an interior road. They will have no front yard and no back yard neighbors. Their only neighbors would be those on either side of them. By not having double facing lots, neighbors' back yards are contiguous. As men tioned, the back yard is the prime place of neighborhood interraction. Again, Mr. Orning felt that the concept plan before you is the best that can be developed, lie did not consider any of the economic issues regarding the subject of double facing lots. He stated that he would be willing to meet The H oi The Mei Mrs. Ji with tl Finallj sonallj of dou] tive t( which < counci facing SHKSdSIS? city wi roads. By sen to appt sition the Res cern e> to the road ri this pa 2,500 1 square These t As to t