03-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ' i Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 3 There are, of course, certain trade-offs for the neighborhood. Extending Birch Lane to Tonkawa Road certainly would change the character of the neighborhood. Further, 7 additional lots abutting North Shore Drive would technically become through lots, requiring CUPs for construction of accessory buildings. But, direct access to North Shore Drive could ultimately be eliminated, which from a City and County perspective would enhance safety. Staff Recommendation Regarding Future Access Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that this subdivider be required to dedicate right-of- way along the southerly border for the entire width of .he property. The Comprehensive Plan would consider this road, which ultimately would serve as many as 22 residences, to be considered as a local street with a standard right-of-way width cT 50-60 ’. Therefore, staff recommends that a 50' corridor be dedicated as part of the current proposal. «3ne way to minimize the impact of this dedication is to make use of the 8' access easement on »he adjacent property to the south. This roadway easement appears to have been created in the 1950s or earlier, and would need to be confirmed as legitimate by an attorney. Assuming it is usable, only a 42' right-of-way need be platted from applicant's property. E.xhibit I reflects a 42' road dedication and relocated lot boundaries still resulting in conforming lots. Road Construction <& Temporary Cul-de-sac While the developer has indicated he is willing to plat the 42' right-of-way the entire length of the property, he is less interested in building a full scale road and cul-de-sac. In the normal situation, staff would recommend that this 300' segment of road be constructed as part of this subdivision proposal, and a temporary cul-de-sac be developed vvithin the property currently being subdivided. Paved width of the roadway would be at least 28’; the subdivision standards Section 11.33, Subd. 4 indicate that a public street serving more than 10 residences should be 32' wide. However, during the sketch plan review Planning Commission felt there were substantial reasons to not create a cul-de-sac or the appearance of a public street, all related to the site's proximity to the Maxwell Bay access. Planning Commission suggested that a driveway within a private outlot would be less likely to cause traffic or parking problems for the residents, and that Lots 2 and 3 could reduce hardcover impacts by sharing a driveway. Planning Commission also sugge.si J that a'T' turn'”’'' ind for emergency vehicles be considered. When our building inspectors disci ssed this with the Fire Chief in Januarj', his response was that a through road is the best solution, a cul-de-sac for now would be a good temporary situation, but a'T' turnaround is not acceptable.