CC 12-14-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Dec. 14, 1981 After discussion of optional drive locstions - to the east park- ing lot, and south to existing drive, Hollenhorst ~oved that Council approve the additional 12 ' wide access drive as proposed, with the provisions reco~~ended by the Planning Co~~ission: -signed for service vehicles only -li~ited to a ~axi~u~ of six vehicles/dsy, snd -aligned with existing driveway across Hamline. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unani~ously (4-0). Case No. 81-29 , Royal Hills - Preli~inary Plat Council was referred to the Preli~inary Plat of Royal Hills, con- sisting of 16 lots; explained that the initial plat presented had . 19 lots and 2 cul-de-sacs, all lots con for~ing wi th all ordinance l'equire~ents . Miller explained that the initial plat would require re~oval 0 f ~any quality trees which p rovi de a good screen fro~ Highway 10, and would alao require extensive grading; the layout as proposed, consiating of 16 lots, eli~inates the se cond cul-de-sac to the west and creates deep lots, so~e of which are 85' in width, which the Planning Co~~ission reco~~ends for approval. Miller explained that both plats stub Royal Lane at the east property line (Floral Park); noted that several options for this road are: -extend Royal Lane to Floral Drive along the eas t side of the Hanson property (im~ediately south of Royal Lane), -cuI Royal Lane in Floral Park -stub Royal Lane at Floral Park -extend Royal Lane to Floral Drive th rough the park. Miller reported that the Planning Commission reco~~ends, by a series of ~otions, approval of the Preliminary Plat (16 lot lay- out) as proposed and the first three options in the order lis ted; noted that a motion to not extend the road th rough the park failed (3 to 3) . Developer Marcel Eibensteiner reported thst it was his unde rs tand- ing when he purchased the property tha t he had an access easement to Floral Drive; now finds he does not have an easement through the Hanson property. In dis cuss ion, it was queried whether the length of the Norma Ave. cul-de-aac could be a liability. Miller noted that the cul-de- sac l~ng th is in violation of the Ci ty Code, whi ch limi ts cul-de- sacs to 500 lineal feet, unless the re sre 18 or fewer lots; a variance may be granted fro~ this require~ent with approval of the Preli~inary Plat. Council was referred to Lynden's letter of 12 - 14-81 indicating that if Council finds that the provision deprives the applicant of reasonable use of his land, the variance is nec- essary for the preservation and enj oymen t 0 f a substantial prop- erty right of the applicant and the granting of the variance will not be de t rimen tal to the public welfare or injurious to other property in area in whence the property is sit ua te d , Council ~ay . grant a variance. I twas explained that the east/west easement at the west end of Floral Drive, is a private easement and, unless the property ownera join with the developer, cannot be used to extend Floral Drive. Planner also advised that topography Is such that it Is Impossible to connect Floral Drive to Norma Avenue through the south end of the plat. "u ""...vUlt" .u r.&.U.LG~ lJ'J....vc.. ,;)I...u"".J.........u ~ 00......... ""'1;0 L C:;P ............,...g ..'"'"-- - balance of traffic thru the area is needed for safety reasons, as well as traffic flow. Schunicht said if the road ends at the park, or a cul-de-sac within the park, there will be 30 to 35 homes on the es tima ted 1200 foot long street, with only access to the north: feels this would not be sound planning or engineering. Schunicht -3-