Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2. <br />June 16, 1978 <br />At present, access to the property is from Spring Creek Drive. <br />There. is also a 33' street right-of-way along the. western <br />border of this whole parcel, all within the New Brighton. border. <br />In regard to the .lot. width variance we would note that the <br />deviation is slight and the lot would still have enough width to <br />permit the typical-home being-built in New Brighton to be <br />constructed meeting setback requirements.. In addition, the overall <br />size of the lot proposed to be created (approximately .69 acres) <br />reduces the impact or concern of having a lot slightly less than <br />the minimum width required. <br />The variance for the lot not fronting on a street, however, raises. <br />questions regarding general policy of the City in subdividing <br />property and also the development of this particular parcel. <br />The general policy and platting regulations has been for. lots to <br />abut a public street.. Concerns for lots not fronting on a street <br />(landlocked property) include potential access problems for both <br />residents and emergency vehicles, possibility of the property <br />going tax forfeit, possible intrusions on privacy and desirability <br />of adjacent property when a home is constructed in what are normal <br />back yards and the effect on future property development of the <br />land. located between the street and landlocked property. As a <br />result we do not feel the present request is in keeping with the <br />ordinance, past practice, or good planning. It would seem that. <br />the basic intent of the platting regulations could be met by <br />extending the proposed lot all the way to Spring Creek Drive and <br />create two 73.5 feet in width lots. If the 33' road. right-of-way <br />on the west were vacated it would be possible to create two lots <br />meeting all zoning code requirements. This right-of-way is <br />neither-used nor improved. Whether the property owner would <br />consider requesting a vacation is unknown and it is only <br />speculation as to whether-the Council would approve the vacation <br />at this point in time. We would also note that the existence <br />of the right-of-way and utilities create the possibility that the <br />southern portion of the property owners parcel could be further <br />subdivided.- <br />The applicants have indicated that while the lot would not have <br />direct access to Spring Creek. Drive there would be a 20' permanent <br />easement-for a driveway. The applicants have also stated that <br />they cannot possibly afford to purchase the property north of . <br />their proposed lot all the way to Spring Creek Drive.. <br />