Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />H' <br />K' <br />if <br />I <br />Zoning File 11683 <br />September 9, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />3.Although neither applicant nor his agent have submitted <br />a letter of request, staff was verbally advised that <br />applicants propose contruction of a shared driveway in <br />Outlet A to serve Lots 1 and 2, and request that the <br />existing residence continue to access directly to <br />Watertown Road. <br />Dlscnasion <br />The proposed configuration is the logical first step in the <br />future development of this property into as many as eight or nine <br />2 acre lots (see Exhibits E). The configuration would allow for <br />future development of a cul-de-sac, or for a future connecting <br />road to Golden View Drive if that was deemed necessary at the <br />time of future subdivision. <br />Dri y TB. Road <br />To be consistent with Subdivision Code Section 11.33, Subd. <br />4, this is technically a three-lot plat which would require <br />construction of a 24* wide paved private road and cul-de-sac <br />within Outlot A, serving all three lots. It is staff's <br />understanding that applicant wishes to continue using the <br />existing driveway access to Watertown Road for Lot 3, and <br />construct a shared driveway to serve Lots 1 and 2, rather than <br />construct a fullfledged road and temporary cul-de-sac. In <br />staff's opinion, this requires a variance to the Subdivision <br />Code. <br />If this driveway concept were approved, staff would <br />recosaend that Outlot A stay in the ownership of the applicant, <br />with access easements granted to Lots 1 and 2. The City would <br />take an underlying road and utility easement. Covenants would be <br />needed to define the driveway maintenance responsibilities of <br />Lots 1 and 2, and would have to further define what financial <br />obligation would be incurred by each affected lot at such time <br />that future development occurs. It would have to be stipulated <br />that any new building lots created on the property in the future <br />would trigger upgrade to private road standards. <br />Exhibit F shows the existing driveway location and two <br />possible alternate locations if existing house was required to <br />access directly to Outlot A. From a safety standpoint, the <br />existing driveway is not in a hazardous location. If a variance <br />is granted to allow merely a shared driveway serving Lots 1 and <br />2, the City should require that any future development which <br />would require upgrading of Outlot A to a private road, would <br />trigger the relocation of the existing driveway to Outlot A.