07-10-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( ..•I w*.v>Avvyi^v^ rjL-^-u\i.\ij.NU V^UAiiV115:)iUiSNffiETING HELD ON \UY 15, 1995(#13 - #1800 Michael Plank - Continued)Plank asked if approval could be given under the 1993 standards. Lindquist said thestandards of today need to be upheld.Peterson asked for Plank's opinion on a road with a cul-de-sac. Peterson said the Planning Commission would probably look favorably on giving a width variance in this circumsunce. Plank said a road would take more space and questioned wh,at would happen if changes were to be made to Watenowm Road. • Nolan said the approval could stipulate what would trigger a change if the drive were to come off of Watertown Road. Referring to Exhibit D-6, Peterson said if lot Y (the future 3rd lot) has a home with it, then a road would be needed. Prior to this, the road would only be dedicated. Plank would maintain control of lots X and Y and road postponed. If X or Y were to be built on, the road would be constructed. Lot X might need access off a cmWe-sac if Watenown Road were improved or its status upgraded to a level where limiting individual driveway access onto it is critical. Gafiron questioned w hether the City could require the Applicant to close their drive from Watertown Road under the current lot line rearrangement application. Plank ask why he would want to do this. Commissioners responded that when applicam's desire a change in their properties, this is the time for leverage in gaining solutions to future "what-if ' questions. Lindquist said an easement covenant would be required as a deed restriction on the sale of lot X and development of lot Y. The width variance would be a non-issue. Other commissioners agreed. Lindquist asked if the City could require Lot X to access off a cul-de-sac in the future. Gaffron said if Lot I (X/Y) were divided, the City could then change the access to a road and the road could be built for a level of 3 users. Plank asked if this issue could be addressed at that future time. The commissioners informed him that it was being addressed now and was consistent with a 3-lot division. Gaffron said the 1988 resolution which allowed lot line to happen, mcluded a statement that the developer could use the outlet to serve lot 3 and a future lot split from it (Y and Z). Lindquist and Berg said yes, but the code has changed, and that split never occurred. Plank was reminded that if lot 2 were sold now, there would likely not be enough land to have another lot. Nolan commented that future commissions and councils might v-ievv the property differently and Watenown Road might not be upgraded. Any future changes would be dead ed on at time of future applications, but, the time to gain the easement is .now. VI ■%