Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1503 May 10, 1990 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />»■ ' ' ' <br />Th'e existing private drive legally defined through mutually <br />benefitting easements and not shown on the plat will serve a <br />total of 3 residence lots. <br />Planning Cbanlssion Review - <br />Please review the minutes of the Planning Commission <br />(Exhibit M). The Planning Commission voted to defer all review <br />and action of the application to the Council. The Planning <br />Commission could not provide the required legal quorum for action <br />because 4 of the 7 members are members of the Woodhill Country <br />Club. The minutes do provide background on the neighbors and the <br />applicant's concerns with the staff's review comments. Those <br />concerns are reviewed in detail below. <br />Road - <br />Please review Exhibits D, E and Gl, the City Engineer's <br />report calls for a 50' road outlot with cul-de-sac now that the <br />roadway serves 3 residential units. Note that cul-de-sac has <br />been placed in an area with gentler and flatter topography and <br />less vegetation. The 50' outlot also extends northward from the <br />cul-de-sac. This portion will serve the 3 residential units. <br />The Engineer also recommends a 24' paved road. The current road <br />is at a maximum 16-20' width. Staff has enclosed the sections of <br />the ordinance and Comprehensive Plan that historically has <br />provided a conflict in interpretation as to when is a driveway <br />really a private road. The Comprehensive Plan, written in 1980, <br />classifies a private driveway as serving up to a maximum of 3 <br />units. The subdivision regulations, approved in 1984, classifies <br />the need for a private road at a 3 unit density. It is staff's <br />understanding that in recent court decisions, an ordinance has <br />precedence over directives within a comprehensive plans but the <br />City Attorney may be able to provide further direction in this <br />matter. It should also be noted that the ordinance was approved <br />4 years after the Cox plan providing clear direction. <br />The applicant and an adjacent neighbor have submitted <br />written statements objecting to the installation of a private <br />road and cul-de-sac because of the impact on existing residential <br />development and the heavily wooded areas within the subdivision.