01-20-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Pile #1096 January 14, 1987 Page 2 of 3 Review Exhibit F, Cook is concerned with the drainage that IS channeled to the southeast corner of the Rosch property. We have inspected the site and would recommend that a drainage ditch also be installed along the edge of the right-of-way of Watertown Road up to the east side of the Rosch's driveway. The ditch along VZatertown Road would be just to the north of the large trees along the road. Cook advises that Ms. Rosch would have to pant a temporary construction easement along the south edge cf her property line to permit the installation. Staff has enclosed a copy of the private road easement and covenants for maintenance of the road (Exhibit D), that was pecuted by the applicants with the first plat. Note on page 2, first paragraph the reference to Lot 2 Hal Ison Estates' future use of the private road. The issue of future access will not be staff unless the Planning Commission wishes to address the mpter again. The Peterman Addition was a recent plat and the directives of the previous Council were realized. In a more recent plat review the P & A Investment Company pbdivision application, the City had unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your persuasion, realized that it lacked the necessary legal clout to require the reloation of an epsting access or the shared use of an existing access, unless there is proof of eminent danger in the continued use of an exiping road or that the property to be developed can not achieve safe access within its own boundaries. Clearly, the Knoll Manor access was superior over the Tanglewood Road access but Council moved to ro-affirm the continued use of Tanglewood Road because the reviewing agencies, consultants and staff were unable to provide sufficient proof for the Council that there was eminent danger to the public safety with the use of both accesses with only a 50+ feet separation. Staff would suggest that there is merit in a policy that would reduce the number of curb cuts on a given road based on good planning standards such as safe separation or distance between curb cuts for private or public roads, design limitations or physica^ limitations of roads, minimal sighting distance required based on maximum allowed speeds, the pattern of development and level of development. The City can move to change an existing private road access if there is a clear and present danger - should the City retain authority to change a private road access based on sound planning standards rather than the sole safety factor? If the City plans to reserve the right to alter or replace a private road access, then it must alert and advise all landowners of its future intent and adopt a policy establishing standards for curb cuts for single driveways, shared driveways, private roads, shared access for mulitple private roads, public roads.