03-08-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File ^1803 February 11. 1993 Page 3 would assume no responsibility for the repair or maintenance of road until residential lots developed from Outloi B, Woodhill Ridge, were to be served. Ba.sed on the directives of the covenants, the one lot within the Woodhill Ridge plat (McNellis lot) and the Pnadden property were to have equal share in the maintenance and upkeep of the road. It is not clear as to what WoodhilFs share in the cost of upkeep would be. refer to page 2, item 2. It appears that Woodhill vvill only share in the cost of regular upkeep and maintenance if a club use is to be installed off roadway. At the time of the Woodhill Ridge subdivision, the City allowed the private driveway to remain becau.se there were just two users. Review Exhibits N and O the City code requires a private road at 3 residential units. The real issue is what degree of upgrading will be required and the extent of the upgrading. Review Exhibit J, Mr. McNellis has submitted an updated letter presenting his position. He advises that Mr. Prudden takes the same position. They feel that the road should be upgraded by Woodhill at least along the lower southern portions where the road has never been improved. Mr. McNellis relates serious concerns with current condition of roadway and asks that rather than iiopacting the neighbor to the immediate southeast that a simple backout apron in the southwest cojuer be installed rather than a complete cul-de-sac which would destroy all existing mature vegetation. Review Exhibit K. the City Engineer ’s Review Comments. Gustafson asks that the lower southern roadway be upgraded to a private road with complete cul-de-sac in the southwest corner. Gustafson also notes that the extension road to the north as proposed would have to remain a private driveway serving just two residential units. As already noted in this memo, the proposed Wotxlhill lot will bt served at the northern boundaries taking advantage of the more gentler slopes so three units will be served from the private driveway portion. Review the sketch of the City Engineer, Exhibit L. If the northern portion of the driveway was to ever meet the standards for a private road, the road outlot must be realigned so the road can be installed at an acceptable degree of slope (no greater than 8% to 9%). Note the road would wipe out the proposed building site and require the realignment of the eastern lot line. Proposed Outlot B consists of severe sloping topographies and it is doubtful whether the property could be rcsidentially development based on current rural standards. It is the potential development of 8.3 acre Prudden property that creates the need to develop a private road corridor to the north. A private road cannot be constructed within the northern portion of the proposed road outlot. This is the only time the City can plan for a future road expansion U) the north. It will be too late once Lot I’s let lines are detined and a house hKated on the property. At a minimum the road must be upgraded along ihe southern portion. There must be a turnaround of some type at the southwe.st comer, at the base of the private drive northward before its steep extension to minimize safety concerns during times of bad weather. Can the City legally allow the northward extension to remain as a private driveway serxing six lots.’ Refer to Exhibits M 1-2. the sketches show the road outlot realigned and platted to north lot line. The current developer would install private road to point where private