02-12-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ile #1470 10, 1990jarding '.ot width, the flaVlots^re that the narrow access p _ will be defined at theOt, so that the than within the narrowI, Based on this to recommend that the 20^irtfon^bfe^tendeS 10?' north to abut the widening d Lot 2.issues - r - 4.hB C.ree issues present themselves regarding access for It Should be the width of outlet A2 (please review also <hibit F.) vhe ince we know that "hV i°s Ukriy® to"b®®''*'i/” de part of Outlot A, ces to build. Therefore, "if'^his lot 9'f"?tkeirilti”ately serve at least 3 ortion of Outlot ^ is further divided. At a fnces, perhaps a 4th xf and subdivision code 'of 4 houses, both “ a private road rather>rds define the traveled access as p , private driveway. .a a few 3 lot although in the past the Marten on Tonkawa; opme^tl to use 30' ^Tw" BoadW ,gVMassopust on /to provide a 50' outlot, per opments have been requirea vision code standard. Because Outlot a ‘\\i« \^opem ^ ,v^\o%rd^:fti “^ac‘c''eVs ‘v(a Outlot » ^gta^t ’an such a development would Outlot A, the subdivision ional 10* to the proposed 40 that "street systems i Action 11-40' "“'^‘'irS^^^Sd ou^ eliminate or avoidsubdivisions shall be layed o gests that now is the g;^iS?rti^“o “ortrin » t^/l SO^.^lde outlot from the It would seem to be an appropriate City^PO^l^^^^y^that^ w^^ tional future development is 1^^®!^ private outlot/driveway, ^.^ambei of houses, being serv d by 50' outlot per ‘^'’^•■',!t;S”"^f’^tSrsubdifiriL code When it has the opportunity Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 3 of 6If the Reiersgord property develops before a future subdivision of Lot 1, the City will not have the opportunity to expand the outlot to 50' width because Reiersgord will not own Lot 1. The only future opportunity to gain an additional 10* for Outlot A would be when Lot 1 is divided.The northerly 20' wide proposed outlot segment will serve only 1 lot now and perhaps 1 additional future lot. This segment of Outlot A could be considered as merely a private driveway, not necessarily subject to an underlying road and utility easement to the City. Staff would question whether the driveway can be constructed within the 20' corridor provided. If not. Lot 1 could grant a widened easement to Lot 2, or the outlot could be increased in width. Either way, the fire code standards would require that a 20' driving surface with emergency vehicle turnaround be provided for this extremely long driveway length.II. What part of Outlot A should be paved now? What part shouldbe paved ab £ubure development: levels?If it is the City's intent to start requiring that private roads be upgraded as old existing subdivisions reach a certain level of development, that would be a positive change in policy, but with many ramifications for homeowners. Would the trigger level be based on the subdivision code standards? (l.e. 3-6 units requires 24' paving, "more than 7" requires 28' paving, 1, 2 or 7 being undefined.) Does the poor 3rd user who triggers it incur the wrath of the other 2, who will help pay for it? In the Parten proposal, is this a subdivision that should have a trigger at the 3 unit level, or at the 4 unit level, or at any specified level? Is it the intent of the subdivision code to apply road standards to this mere lot line rearrangement with access outlot creation? III. Should the City request a road and utility easement over all, a portion, or none of Outlot A? If Outlot A is created, the City should logically take a road and utilities easement over it, since it will ultimately serve 3 or more lots, to be consistent with subdivision code Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (D). Note that the recently approved ordinance which requires public accessability to private roads for which the City has underlying easements, would have to be available for White's future use if he so desired, with no cost-sharing stipulations.