08-15-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The adopted Plan does not require this connection and specifically states that either a cul-de-sac, or a looped street would be acceptable. We recognize that the adjacent neighbors do not want the connection and Mr. Rebers doesn't want the connection, but there are some good public safety reasons for the limitation of the length of such streets. Frankly, it is debatable whether the fact that the proposed street is to be privately owned is enough to waive this standard, we would need to review this issue in more detail before commenting on that. What concerns us about the case in point is that, if it is processed as a straight rezoning and the street remains a 2100 ft. cul-de-sac, a variance may be required. The granting of a variance requires the finding of a hardship and we do not believe that such a finding could be made. If the proposed plan was processed as a PUD, the opportunity to save additional trees, or similar benefits could be cited to justify the departure from the strict interpretation of the rules. ► When the actions that cities take are boiled down to their essence, they should be reasonable. If the only justification for this cul-de-sac length is to achieve exclusivity in this neighborhood, one has to ask when the same argument could not be used. The danger lies when the City wants to require some needed future connection and the applicants in those cases can point to examples in the past when the City has not followed its own rules with insufficient justification. Barring compelling reasons to the contrary, we recommend the looping of this street. The proposed plans include provision for significant trails and "woodland preserve". These plans cho.ld be reviewed by the Parks Commission to insure that the necessary community wide connections can be accomplished. As you know, the site is heavily wooded. The developer proposes to grade in the private street and install utilities, but to leave the lots alone until a specific house plan is approved. Such lot plans will be reviewed by an architectural review committee and particular scrutiny will be paid to maximizing the preservation of existing trees. In our experience, this approach to the development of heavily wooded sites yields the best result^. That concludes a basic overview of the proposed plan. A copy of the City Engineer's memo has been attached for your review because it includes some additional information that you may find helpful. We will be in att^xndance at the meeting to answer any additional questions, or assist you in your deliberations regarding this matter. We will also send a copy of this report to the applicants in hope that they can respond to some of these questions and concerns in their presentation.