Laserfiche WebLink
L^l* <br />MkVK <br />[•ipW^ <br />Zoning Pile #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 outlet to 50* width because Reiersgord will not own Lot 1. The only future opportunity to gain an additional 10* for Outlet A would be when Lot 1 is divided.The northerly 20* wide proposed outlet segment will serve only 1 lot now and perhaps 1 additional future lot. This segment of Outlet A could be considered as merely a private driveway, not necessarily subject to an underlying road and utility ejsement to the City. Staff would question whether the drivev.ay can be constructed within th« 20* corridor provided. It nor, Lot 1 could grant a widened easement to Lot 2, or the outlet 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 Outlet A should be paved now? What part shouldpaved at future development levels? <br />If it is the City's intent to start requiring that private <br />roads be upgraded as old existing subdivisions reach a certain <br />level of development, that would be a positive change in policy, <br />but with many reunifications for homeowners. <br />Would the trigger level be based on the subdivision: code <br />standards? (i.e. 3-6 units requires 24* paving, "more than 7" <br />requires 28* paving, 1, 2 or 7 being undefined.) Does the poor <br />3rd user who triggers it incur the wrath of the other 2, who will <br />help pay for it? <br />In the Parten proposal, is this a subdivision tb‘t should <br />have a trigger at the 3 unit level, or at the 4 unit 7 1, or at <br />any specified level? Is it the intent of the subdiv: a code_ to <br />apply road standards to this mere lot line rearrangement with <br />access outlet creation? <br />III. Should the City request a road and utility easement over <br />all, a portion, or none of Outlot A? <br />If Outlot A is created, the City should logically take a <br />road and utilities easement over it, since it will ultimately <br />serve 3 or more lots, to be consistent with subdivision code <br />Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (D). Note that the recently <br />approved ordinance which requires public accessability to private <br />roads for which the City has underlying easements, would have to <br />be available for White's future use if he so desired, with no <br />cost-sharing stipulations. <br />•n