02-14-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 6 February 10, 1994 Zoning File #1862 Road/Access/Extensions The Planning Commission considered the need for a future connection outlet to west and reviewed the pertinent sections of the Comp Plan and subdivision code. The Commission listened to the various sutements of the adjacent residents and affected property owners in attendance. Review Exhibits D. E, F. G and U, both applicant and owner objected strongly to the City’s requirement for the future extension corridor claiming a negative impact on the future development of lots and existing improvements on the homestead parcel. Lot 8 to be sold to owner’s son. Review Exhibit D. Mr Sucss, Jr.’s letter and exhibits, Mr. Suess ’ objections reflect the same concerns raised by neighboring property owners when City sought future extension corridors at Goldenview, Silver View and Woodhaven Drives. The concerns voiced by members in attendance were for increases in traffic with a through road where residents purchase homes to enjoy the privacy and less intense use of private roads with cul-de-sacs. The owner voiced concern with the potential diminution in property values for lots that would now be located on a future through road. Staff has met with John Hallson, the owner of the property to the immediate west, who was concerned with the potential impact of an extension road through his property as it is his future plan to subdivide. Mr. Hallson chose to disregard his attorney’s letter at the meeting and took the position that he wanted no extension through his property because it would negate a potential subdivision of 3 lots. Review Exhibit G, during the review of the Meyer Dairy Addition and the Peterson Second Addition (Silver View Drive and Goldenview Drive) the same issues were raised by the property owners and developers. The City has no immediate or future plan to install through roads with the acquisition of these extension corridors. This policy reflects a basic part of good planning practice for an integrated road system when future development pressures create the need for through roads. The minority opinion felt the subdivision regulations would require the acquisition of a connection outlot in this case and determined that now is the time to seek the extension to the west. The City had already addressed a linkage to tlw north with the connecting corridor between Silver View and Goldenview. Access to all 8 lots shall be via the private road. No direct access will be allowed for any of the lots within the subdivision onto Watertown Road. The City will ask for a 33’ dedication of right-of-way for Watertown Road. Drainage and utility easements shall lie provided 10’ along the perimeter of all property lines except for the eastern perimeter where easements will be 25 - 35 ’ wide. Easement should also be expanded at shared lot lines of Lots 3 and 4. Drainage and utility easement should be 10’ wide along perimeter of the road outlot and 5 ’ on either side of the shared interior lot lines.