Agenda - 06-03-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6 Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on this area. Planning staff recommended approval of the plan subject to the following conditions: • (1) a control corner be shown on the plat (2) indicate the lot area outside of the right-of- - way and label as such (3) indicate on the plat that no activity will be allowed inside of the 50' stream buffer • (4) a Class "A" road be constructed (corrected by staff) . (5) the . Road Maintenance Agreement include a stipulation which would allow the adjoining tract (Lot 16A) , upon developing the tract, to use the easement (private road) . Smith noted a correction to staff recommendation in condition #4 to read a publicly dedicated road constructed to state standards. Bob Epting, attorney representing the applicant Tony Clark, spoke to the Board about road requirements. He felt there was confusion with regard to private road standards. His client wanted to make use of the road already existing and keep it on the high side of the property, away from the stream. The restrictive covenants proposed would restrict the use and maintenance of the road to the eight lots. He addressed the issue of road "service". They are requesting a Class B road, but providing a 60' right- of way so that the owner could eventually widen it to state standards if they so desired. A Class B road would cost the developer about $8500 to $9000. If paved, it would cost about $50,000. This would increase the cost of the lots by about 40%. Smith clarified that state road requirements require only a 50' right-of-way. Smith noted that the Subdivision Regulations assumes that a road constructed to serve a subdivision 3s to be a public road but that a private road may be alllowed if certain criteria outlined in the Subdivision Regulations are satisfied. The two decisions to be made are whether the road should be