Laserfiche WebLink
F_ <br />AUG 131980 <br />BOOK 44 PAGE 269 <br />TENTATIVE APPROVAL SHADY OAKS SuBDivisioN - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS <br />SENIOR PLANNER DAVID MARSH NOTED THAT THIS IS A CONTINUANCE <br />FROM THE LAST MEETING'S AGENDA. THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF APPROXI- <br />MATELY 38 ACRES TO BE DIVIDED INTO 50 LOTS OF VARIOUS SIZES. THE <br />PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON 43RD AVENUE ONE QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF OSLO ROAD <br />AND BACKS UP TO GROVENOR ESTATES, UNIT 1. THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE <br />FLOWS TO KELLEY ROAD AND 43RD AVENUE CANALS. MR. MARSH NOTED THAT THE <br />AGENT AND OWNER ARE PRESENT, AND HE BELIEVED THAT THEY WISH TO APPEAL <br />THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING STAFF THAT HALF ROADS ARE REQUIRED BY <br />THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THE STAFF, IN THEIR INTERPRETATION OF <br />THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE DEVELOPER <br />IS REQUIRED TO EITHER PAVE OR PUT UP SURETY FOR THE HALF OR PARTIAL <br />STREETS ABUTTING THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. THIS IS BASICALLY TO <br />INSURE CONTINUITY WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS. MR, MARSH CONTINUED <br />THAT THE DEVELOPER AGREES THAT THE DEDICATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE, BUT <br />WOULD NOT AGREE THAT THE PAVING OF THE HALF ROAD OR ESCROW FOR SAME <br />IS APPROPRIATE EITHER ON 12TH STREET CONNECTING THE TWO SUBDIVISIONS <br />OR ON THE CONNECTOR ROAD TO THE NORTH VACANT PROPERTY. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE HAD TALKED TO PLANNING <br />DIRECTOR REVER ABOUT THIS SITUATION AND ASKED WHETHER HE ANTICIPATED <br />THAT 39TH AVENUE, WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THIS SUBDIVISION.- <br />EVER <br />UBDIVISION, <br />EVER WOULD BE CUT THROUGH. HE SAID HE DID NOT BECAUSE OF THE CANALS <br />AT THE NORTH AND SOUTH, AND INASMUCH AS WE HAD MOVED THE BRIDGE TO <br />12TH STREET, IT WOULD CREATE A CIRCULATION PATTERN FOR THIS SUBDIVI- <br />SION: SO, HE COULD NOT, AT THAT TIME, THINK OF ANY REASON FOR REQUIR- <br />ING THEM TO PAVE THE HALF STREET IN BACK. MR. REVER DID WANT TRACT D <br />DEDICATED SO THERE WOULD BE ACCESS TO THE NORTH. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT <br />DID NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT AND INQUIRED THE PURPOSE FOR <br />CONNECTING THESE TWO SUBDIVISIONS. <br />MR. MARSH STATED THAT THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DO REQUIRE <br />INTERCONNECTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES, AND THE STAFF FEELS THERE <br />WILL BE A MAJOR PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE IF WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW SUB- <br />DIVISIONS TO DEVELOP WITHOUT ANY CONNECTION BECAUSE THIS WILL PUT <br />A HEAVY RELIANCE ON ALL YOUR MAJOR THOROUGHFARES. MR. MARSH STATED <br />HE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT MR, REVER DID NOT FEEL THIS WOULD BE A MAJOR <br />COLLECTOR. <br />w <br />r <br />