04-15-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2127 April 10, 1996 Page 4 individual r arcels su^gert' ig a public dedicated road. In 1980, owners of West Branch Hill aad West Branch Acres contemplated a joint subdivision but some how the owners failed to be abla K) reoch agreement on the layout of the four lot subdivision. In 1982 the owner of the West B' uvri Hill property, Rick Hawkinson, proceeded with a separate subdivision The Ciry asked for a 2.V casement along the west lot line of Lot 2. The easement was to be taken over the 25' land corridor that connected Lot 2 with West Branch road but to extend no further south. It is not clear from the plat resolution. Exhibit K, why the road and utility casement was taken to the southwest comer of Lot 2. Review Exhibit G, Hennepin County advised the applicant's in 1980 that the existing access originally proposed in 1980 as a private road would not meet the sighting requirements for a 40 mph roadway unless property ovmers were willing to reduce hill in County Road to the east of West Branch Hill. This may have been the reason why the ongmal 1980 subdivision application was never realized. In 1987 with the West Branch Acre subdivision, once again a road and utility casement was granted at a specific north-south length providing access to both the existing residence loi and future Lot 2 to the south. Note in that subdivision the developer and future owner of Lot 2 is traced on notice at the time Highview Lane was developed. L.ot 2 would have to achieve access Highview Lane. In West Branch Acres subdivision, the City also sought an additional 30' of dedicated right-of-way for unimproved Highview Lane at the south boundary. Note on page 2 of the Hennepin County DOT report there was an update in 1987 that stated existing curb cut at West Branch Road could never serve more than 3 units in present condition of County Road. Staff recalls that at the time ot the 1987 review another developer was proposing a resubdivision of the properties defined on Exhibit J as future park and parcels detined as owned by bank. Development of an access from the south was very real in the 1987 era. The City Attorney has been asked to review the easements and has concuited that the underlying road and utility easements may serve as access to Lots 95 and 96. The issue is whether this is a legal access based on current code requirements? Access As already noted above, Hennepin County will deny access to fi\ e residential lots at tl«j? *:urrent curb cut unless the hill to the east is reduced. The County has approved tne current dijve '.nit use - Trapp property. Lot 2, West Branch Acres. (Van Sloun) and Lot 2, West Branch Hill (Hcwkin.wn). Note the owner of Lot 2. West Branch Hill, was to develop his own 25 ’ driveway immeciiately adjacent to the Trapp driveway. If Lots 95 and 96 are to be served by this curb cut, the access way must he developed at private road standards with cul-de-sac. The 700'+ roadway must have a tum^und. Applicant must acquire additional lands from the adjacent owners tc meet a continuous 50 wi t standard for a private road and area for a 10' diameter cul-de-sac. Lot 95 may be served by a 30