Laserfiche WebLink
le eight <br />» follows: <br />1. There <br />Bay Road. <br />*i veway <br />s also <br />n lighter <br />1,360 <br />se review <br />t have <br />rtners in <br />mestead was <br />ts. The <br />a red <br />ual curb <br />y. We as <br />ent of curb <br />ge it. <br />cing south/ <br />ve and <br />s double <br />proving <br />d a <br />platting <br />north- <br />he <br />my. <br />W <br />4 <br />% ^ <br />• " -f <br />•: VV> ' <br />w <br />4 <br />a. <br />A <br />i1 <br />1^’ <br />/ <br />> V.: <br />• <br />y-Mil <br />WM <br />The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council <br />The Members of the Planning Commission <br />Mrs. Jeanne Mabusth/Page 6 <br />That concern has been eliminated by the plat revision now under <br />consideration. <br />6. <br />9. <br />Regarding Resolution Paragraph 9: <br />Council asked the applicant to revise the final road and <br />access plan with either extended cul-de-sacs or a through <br />road so that more lots can be picked up internally rather <br />than rely on city's collector streets but the applicant <br />refused. <br />Close inspection of this request will reveal that it does not <br />make sense for the following reasons: <br />A. By extending both the cul-de-sacs north, one would only make <br />four additional lots serviced by the interior roads. <br />B. Only two curb cuts on Watertown Drive would be eliminated. As <br />stated above, the concept plan is reducing the present number of curb cuts from <br />six to five. <br />C. The four lots would be double facing. <br />D. An additional 500 lineal feet of road would be required just to <br />service these four lots. <br />E. The four lots serviced by the interior roads would be facing the <br />opposite direction of the adjacent lots which would be served by Watertown <br />Road. This would create a staggered effect in which one house would face <br />north and the next house would face south, and so on. This would truly make <br />for an odd looking development. <br />7. <br />11. <br />Regarding‘Resolution Paragraph 11: <br />The final road «ind access plan submitted by the applicant for the <br />93 acre property is in conflict with Comprehensive Plan, Part II <br />Chapter 7 - Rural Transportation Policies - Item 4. <br />4. "RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL UTILIZE PRIVATE ROAD <br />FEEDERS n SUPPLEMENT THE EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD GRID. <br />Because ov' ';*,pographical 1 imitations, the historic shape of <br />rural la;t^J y and tbe low density of ruraT land use, <br />most new'rur*^'’ residential lots are best preserved by short <br />dead-eh? roads' running off the existing street system. Ine <br />lownumber ofdwellings on each road, the dead-end configura- <br />TTFn and~thi~scattered road locations make public roadwav <br />■■ <br />The Hono <br />The Memb< <br />Mrs. Jeai <br />We would <br />is that a <br />considere <br />roadway m <br />8. <br />A. <br />B.