Laserfiche WebLink
a recent direction flag lota should be L be defined at the within the narrow e for lot width is I a possible future immend that the 20* ut the widening ofing access for this(Please review alsoeasement over the kely to use it for } build. Therefore^ ly serve at least 3 <br />her divided. At a <br />nd subdivision code <br />rlvate road rather <br />lowed a few 3 lot <br />(Parten on Tonkawa; <br />most 3-plus lot <br />50' outlot» per the <br />y to the southeast^ <br />»#ould in the future <br />le one could argue <br />e White to grant an <br />A, the subdivision <br />"street systems in <br />eliminate or avoid <br />s that now is the <br />le outlot from the <br />Zoning File #1470 January 1C, 1990 Page 3 of 6If the Reiersgcrd 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. Nhet pert of Outlet A should be paved now? What part shouldbe paved at future developwcnt 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 ramifications 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 that should <br />have a trigger at the 3 unit level, or at the 4 unit level, or at <br />any specified level? Is it the intent of the subdivision code to <br />apply road standards to this mere lot line rearrangement with <br />access outlot creation? <br />III. Should the City request a road and utility <br />ail, a portion, or none of Outlot A? <br />lent <br />policy that, where <br />crease to 3 or more <br />te outlot/driveway, <br />idard 50' outlot per <br />has the opportunity <br />If Outlot A is created, the City should logically t.iKe 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.