04-15-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2127 April 10,1996 Page 5 wide driveway outlet that extends from the cul-de-sac, refer to Exhibit R. Staff has scheduled a meeting with both Trapp, the owner of Lot 1, West Branch Acres, and Hawkinson, the owner of Lot 2, West Branch Hill, to review the potential impact of the proposed subdivision on their properties. Staff will review their concerns at your meeting. Review of Issues Concerning Legal Access to Property: 1.The existing curb cut cannot be used to serve five residential units unless major improvements are completed within County Road right-of-way. Is it financially feasible for applicant to acquire additional area for road and cul-de-sac and also pay for expensive County Road improvement? 2.Is it feasible for applicant to install a private driveway to serve Lots 95 and 96 via Garden Lane and Highview Lane? Review Exhibit J, note Sollner-Webb owns property further south along Garden Lane. There would be three residential units served within the platted right-of-way. Will you recommend an upgrading to a private road or will you allow an upgraded driveway to se^e the three residential units? This may be the best access option available to applicant. 3.Review the existing land use. Exhibit J. The 10 acre tax forfeit land will be a future open space park. The lots currently owned by a bank and designnred on your map may also be added to the open space park. (Saga H*’' ^'re.sfrvation Society has executed an option with the bank to buy the properties avet a specified period of time). Public fund.s will also be contributed to the sale of the property. Garden Lane and Highview Lane may never be developed by the City as a public road. Should this have any impact on your decision. Review Exhibit I, note the drop in topography in Highview Lane to the building sites if an access is developed from Highview Lane. Access should be a shared access to minimize the impact on the steep topographies and existing vegetation. Do you concur that the City is obligated to provide a reasonable access to this property? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the application be tabled providing applicant additional time to meet wi^ “ engineer who will provide comparison of costs for either a north or south access to Lots 95 and 90. If applicant chooses to use the existing public easements for the north access, then applicant must meet with the owners of the adjacent properties for the purpose of acquiring additional nght-of-way i