HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 04.05.2012 MINUTES
Laurel City- County Planning Board
April 5, 2012 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
Members Present: Kathy Siegrist, Chairman
Greg Nelson, Member -at -Large
David Schreder, City Rep.
John VanAken, County Rep.
Don Brown, City Rep.
Judy Goldsby, City Rep.
Dennis Eaton, City Rep.
Dick Fritzler, County Rep.
Hazel Klein, City Rep.
Others Present: Monica Plecker, City Planner
Cheryl) Lund, City Secretary
CaII to Order: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm.
Roll Call: Schreder, Klein, Brown, Nelson, Eaton, Goldsby, Fritzler, VanAken and Siegrist.
Public Comment on non - agenda items: No public input.
Approval of Minutes from the March 1, 2012: The minutes of the March 1, 2012 meeting were
approved as written after a motion by Judy Goldsby, seconded by Dick Fritzler. The motion carried by a
vote of 8 - 0.
New Business: Variance request by Sam Robertus for East 11 and Montana Avenue.
City Planner Monica Plecker stated that Sam Robertus has submitted an application for a variance
requesting a single family dwelling be built without completing street improvements on 150 -feet of East
11 Street which abuts the north edge of the property. His property is located off of E. 11th Street and
Montana Avenue. This request will require the secondary alley access to act as the primary access to
the property.
The property is currently zoned R -7500.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The property owner has submitted a variance asking for the lot to be "built upon without
completing the 150' of E. 11 Street on the north edge" of the property, therefore, the alley will
act as the primary access for the property.
2. Typical improvements to an undeveloped street include water and sewer lines, curb, gutter and
road improvements needed to serve the newly constructed building. See the attached
memorandum from Public Works Director Kurt Markegard.
3. LMC 17.08.080 states an "alley means a public way which affords only secondary access to
abutting property."
4. The property was annexed into the City in 2005. The adjacent public right -of -ways were not
included in the annexation but should have been as the original resolution refers to MCA 7 -2 -42.
This regulation requires the municipality to include the full width of any public streets or roads,
including rights -of -way that are adjacent to the property being annexed. To correct the
oversight, an amended resolution will go before council on April 17, 2012 to specify the rights -
of -way that are to be annexed with the property.
5. The previous property owner signed a waiver of protest for the City to form a special
improvement district, therefore, Mr. Robertus does not need to offer a waiver of protest.
6. The 2003 Bicycle- Pedestrian Plan identifies a proposed off - street trail which follows the portion
of the Nutting Drain adjacent to Mr. Robertus' property.
7. The attached exhibits are copies of the variance application request, dimension drawing, and a
letter from Mr. Robertus explaining the need for a variance. Also included is a memorandum on
behalf of the Public Works Department.
8. As per the requirements of LMC 17.72.070, a public hearing on the matter shall be held before
the zoning commission before being heard by the Laurel City Council. As per B. of the section,
public notice was published in the Laurel Outlook and adjacent property owners were notified
by certified mail more than 15 days prior to the public hearing.
ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning Commission shall review and make determinations on the following chapters and sections of
the Laurel Municipal Code (LMC):
1. According to Chapter 17.60.020 of the LMC the Zoning Commission may not recommend
granting a land use variance; unless:
1. Unless the denial would constitute an unnecessary and unjust invasion of the right of the
property;
2. Unless the grant relates to a condition or situation special and peculiar to the applicant;
3. Unless the basis is something more than mere financial Toss to the owner;
4. Unless the hardship was created by someone other than the owner;
5. Unless the variance would be within the spirit, intent, purpose, and general plan of this title;
6. Unless the variance would not affect adversely or injure or result in injustice to others; and
7. Ordinarily unless the applicant owned the property prior to the enactment of this title or
amendment.
2. As per LMC 17.72.060 the Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council
to:
1. Deny the application for amendment to the official map;
2. Grant action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty days;
3. Delay action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty days;
4. Give reasons for the recommendation.
STAFF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS:
If the Planning Board recommends approval of the land use variance, the following conditions are
suggested:
1. The variance shall be good for 3 years from approval on unimproved property.
2. The applicant shall apply for a building permit.
3. Property shall be kept free of noxious weeds.
4. The owner shall comply with Public Works Standards for connection and improvements to
city water and sewer services.
5. All storm water must be kept on site.
PROPONENTS:
Sam Robertus of 1319 Pennsylvania spoke regarding his request for a variance for Certificate of Survey
#2039 Parcel A -1, Tax Code D02627.
Sam acquired the property about a year ago and has found a person that would like to buy the property
and build a single family dwelling of which it is currently zoned for. He then contacted the City regarding
the access and was told he would have to apply for a variance because there are conditions that are
unique to the property.
Currently 150' of E. 11 Street sits over the top of the Nutting Drain which is an open ditch. There is
some access to the property which could be a do -able thing for now until the City decides eventually
how to go about alleviating the problems that have been created during subdividing. He would like to
come up with a mutual solution in the meantime so he can sell the property and be able to build on it.
Some of the concerns on the access that were brought up by the City are emergency access and
sanitation collection. Sam pointed out that access is already available for those services through the
alley. There is a city easement on the front (north) side of the property and he would like to be able to
enter the property off of that easement. The plans are to face the single family dwelling north with the
possibility of the attached garage being entered off of the alley.
Sam referred to Laurel Municipal Code 17.60.020 in that he feels that if the variance is granted,
currently it would not affect adversely or injure or result in injustice to others, in the event completion
of E. 11 Street would be beneficial to future development, the Mountain View's property owner's
share of completing the street would go uncontested in an SID.
Sam went on to say that he has no problem putting in the street but wants to do so after all of the drain
ditch and easement issues are resolved. Sam thanked the Board for their time.
Chairman Siegrist read the public hearing procedures for the public present.
Questions from the Board:
Dick Fritzler asked how the house would face on the lot?
Sam stated that the house will probably face north onto E. 11 Street at a diagonal and the garage may
be turned to face the alley.
John VanAken asked if the location was on the east or west side of Montana?
Sam stated that it is on the east side of the alley behind Montana. It is to the north of Pat Mullaney's
house. If Colorado were a through street this lot would be on the west side of Colorado.
Monica stated there is a 30 foot right -of -way on the Colorado side of the property. North of that across
E. 11 Street Colorado is a 60 foot right -of -way as it crosses E. 11 Street it is a 100 foot right of way.
So, on the east side of Mr. Robertus' property there is a right -of -way in place for Colorado to one day go
through.
Dave Schreder stated that historically you cannot have a primary access off an alley, so if the variance
was granted does that mean that everyone else that has a piece of property that doesn't have an access
can ask for the same thing. He walks in this area a lot and personally he wouldn't care if this were
allowed but it could be opening up a can of worms. He wonders if the city couldn't grant an easement
so he could come into the property off of E. 11 Street and not down the alley.
Sam states that Nutting Drain is an open ditch and he could probably get an easement to go over it but
there are some parts of Nutting Drain that are buried.
Monica stated that where E. 11 currently ends it is platted to continue on in the same exact spot in the
same manner.
John VanAken wonders why the City easement on E. 11 isn't part of Mr. Robertus' property.
Monica states that the Bicycle /Walking path will go through there.
Sam Robertus believes that the easement is for the Nutting Drain.
John VanAken wonders why that is a separate part of the Robertus' property.
Monica stated that Mr. Robertus' property ends at his property line and the City street (E. 11 starts in
the city easement. On the east side of Mr. Robertus' property there is a 30 foot city easement where
Colorado begins.
At this time the Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Siegrist (6:30 pm).
PROPONENTS:
Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any proponents that wished to speak. There were none.
OPPONENTS:
Clarence Eastlick of 1102 Montana Avenue spoke. He lives kitty corner to the Laurel Medical Center. He
stated that other than George Metzger he is probably the oldest living resident in that area. He has
lived in his house since 1973. To clarify some of the questions on right of way he believes that the
easement is 75 feet. The Nutting Drain tile runs underneath the sidewalk on the south side of E. 11
Street. There is a portion at the corner of Montana and E. 11 where there is no curb gutter or
sidewalk. When you get over to the north side of Sam Robertus' property the drain ditch is going to be
underneath the street itself. It runs at an angle slightly northeast. His question is if the board allows
Sam Robertus to build and access off of the easement on E. 11 will that set a precedent for other
people. He knows of no other property in the City of Laurel that has a primary entrance off of an alley.
If we allow this once we will have to allow it for everyone.
Chairman Siegrist stated that each case is looked at on an individual basis.
Clarence Eastlick stated that if it is not done on an individual basis then that comes under discrimination
and the city needs to be careful.
Don Schultz of 1103 Montana Avenue spoke. He stated that it was said that new sewer and water lines
were proposed to be tapped in from the southwest corner of his house. If that happens who will be
paying for his sidewalk if it is torn up? He also questioned whether they will allow the same type of
access Sam Robertus is asking for on the property to the north of Sam's across E. 11 Street.
Ron Benner of 1408 E. Maryland spoke as a representative for the Nutting Drain District. He stated that
he is not an opponent or a proponent. He stated that he is not so sure that the easement to the north
of Sam's property is a city easement because when Iron Horse Subdivision came in there was some
question on that about ownership and how far they could extend the lots to the ditch because it wasn't
necessarily an easement it was actually partially Nutting Drain ownership. The only question he has is
that if any alterations are done to the ditch someone has to pick up the cost and it shouldn't be the
Nutting Drain District. The City doesn't like to pay for the covering of the drain but somebody will have
to step up otherwise the property owners will have to pay for it. If it messes up the drain somebody will
have to fix it and pay for it. If someone wants to cover the drain, and it is engineered correctly, the
Nutting Drain will be in favor of doing so. But if it's not done right and will end up costing the Nutting
Drain District then there will be a problem.
Bob Eastlick of 1017 Montana spoke. He lives in the town homes that abut the alley. He is not an
opponent or a proponent. He feels that the road should be finished because there are so many things in
Laurel that are half - finished. He also wants the city to be careful with the drain so that no one ends up
having to pay for something that doesn't benefit them.
Keith Metzger of 215 E. Maryland spoke representing his parents George and Loretta Metzger of the
same address. They are the property owners directly to the east of the proposed variance. They are not
protesting the variance but they do protest the agreement of the SID. If the City allows an SID on his
parents it would be a huge detriment to them. He believes the Nutting Drain runs on the south side of
E. 11 He does not believe it is a full blown ditch anymore. The Nutting drain has not been addressed
or dredged for over 30 years nor the weeds burned.
Keith went on to reiterate that his parents don't protest the variance they protest any SID that might
come along for the road. He also said that putting in E. 11 serves no purpose to anyone other than 2
homes since the Metzger's have no plans to develop their property nor does the property owner to the
North. Colorado Avenue will never be developed because it would have to go right through his parents
home and they would fight that issue, understandably. There will be no future development. Keith's
major concern is that his parents will end up having to pay on an SID.
Chairman Siegrist stated that the SID is not the issue here.
John VanAKen disagrees because he feels that the SID and this situation are part of one another because
if the SID is allowed without addressing the Nutting Drain issue then if a variance is granted for E. 11
the street won't be completed.
Monica stated that the SID could be something that comes along in the future. If that is the case then
E. 11 Street will be developed and the adjoining land owners, along with Sam, will have to pay their
part when E. 11 Street is extended. An SID is not currently in place. What Sam was offering in his
letter was to sign a waiver of protest and that if an SID were to be developed in the future then he
would sign a waiver of protest and comply with the city's wishes to extend E. 11 Street. That was
already done by the previous owner of this property.
Keith Metzger requested that if Sam's variance were approved the board put in a contingency that if
E. 11 Street were ever extended his parents would not be made to participate in the SID. He feels that
it should fall to the city, or the property owners that want the road put in.
George Metzger of 215 E. Maryland spoke. He stated that there is an irrigation ditch that goes kitty -
corner across that property that belongs to a farmer. He stated that he wants to find out what is going
to happen to it. It hasn't been cleaned out in the 30 years that he has been up there all of the way up to
the Big Ditch. He doesn't know who it belongs to, but he cleans it out once a month.
Chairman Siegrist stated that the board is here only to decide on a variance.
Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any other opponents wishing to speak. Seeing none she
closed the public hearing (at 6:45 pm).
BOARD DISCUSSION:
John VanAken made a motion to deny the variance request until a decision is made as to whether or not
E. 11 Street will be extended and the issues with the Nutting Drain ditch are addressed.
John's motion died for lack of a second.
Dick Fritzler asked if E. 11 Street is unimproved how the house will face and how will it be accessed.
Monica stated that the house will be facing E. 11 Street and because the street is unimproved the
primary access at this time will have to be off of the alley.
Dick Fritzler asked about the easement in the front of the property on E. 11 Street.
Monica stated that when that property was initially annexed the Resolution did not identify the adjacent
right of ways which would have included the unimproved E. 11 Street, the right of way for Colorado
Avenue to the east of Sam's property as well as the adjoining alleyway. Those right of ways are not
showing that they are in the city limits. Those right of ways were mentioned in the resolution but were
not specifically named. That is a mistake that the City Council is correcting with an amended resolution
at their April 17, 2012 meeting.
Judy Goldsby stated that with all of the questions on this application one of the board's options is to
delay action for up to 30 days. That way more answers could be made available.
At this time Monica clarified for the gentleman (during the public hearing) regarding his statement that
there are no other properties in Laurel that have primary access off of an alley. Monica clarified that
there is one property in Laurel where the primary access is off of an alley. It is 4 -plex located off of
Woodland Avenue.
There was a question raised on whether or not water and sewer is located on E. 11 Monica made
reference to the information and map that was submitted by Public Works Director Kurt Markegard.
The necessary utilities of water and sewer water are in the adjacent improved right of ways on E. 11
Street and there is a sewer line that runs in the alley adjacent to Mr. Robertus' parcel.
Monica went on to say that currently there is no SID. To provide information on why the SID was even
mentioned; the previous property owners of Mr. Robertus' property signed a waiver of protest during
the annexation of the property. An SID is not a part of the current application.
Monica has made note of all of the questions raised by the public and the board and will look into them
and provide clarification.
John VanAken asked if E. 11 Street is extended would Mr. Robertus have street access even with the
bike path access there.
Monica stated that he would eventually have street frontage. What it comes down to is that when
houses are built, by code they have to have primary street access which is given off of street access. If
E. 11 goes through, even though there is a walking trail that goes through there it would qualify as
having street frontage thus acting as a primary access.
A motion was made by Judy Goldsby, seconded by John VanAken to grant a 30 -day delay of
action on the application due to the many questions that need to be answered. The motion carried by a
vote of 8 -0.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Monica updated the board on the Growth Management Plan. The committee has met 3 times and have
accomplished a final draft of the History Chapter and are beginning their initial review of the Natural
Resources Chapter.
There will be a May 3, 2012 Planning Board meeting where a recommendation on Sam Robertus'
variance will need to be made.
A motion was made by Dennis Eaton, seconded by Judy Goldsby to adjourn the meeting. The meeting
was adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Respectfully subrpitted, /
Cheryl) und, Secretary
Laurel Variance Request Application
This application covers appeals from decisions of the Planning Department (and sometimes
other officials) and for requests for variances concerning setbacks, structures, heights, lot
coverage, etc.
The undersigned owner or agent of the owner of the following described property requests a
variance to the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Laurel as outlined by the laws of the State of
Montana. rf,�
1. Name of property owner: °Le✓ 1- c.S ery p ✓1 1 LC_
2. Name of Applicant if different from above:
3. Phone number of Applicant: ./off - 8s s = a € 7 S
4. Street address and general location: MoL V ti c,,�14< o4 6- /I '` S-0
5. Legal description of the property: Sol i O �._ (2 2 `/ e, Co 5 c&-.4 ( A..
- c --- o4 b( o g -1
6. Current Zoning: Ile s % le,k.krc,
7. Provide a copy of covenants or deed restrictions on property.
I understand that the filing fee accompanying this application is not refundable, that it pays
part of the cost of process, and that the fee does not constitute a payment for a variance. I
also understand I or my agent must appear at the hearing of this request before the Planning
Board and all of the information presented by me is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Q o -
"...Signature of Applicant: emu`
g %
Date of Submittal: o? /07 ? /�.
c ,
Robertus Properties LLC
Sam Robertus
1318 Pennsylvania Ave.
Laurel, MT 59044
February 26, 2012
Monica Plecker
City Planner
City of Laurel
115 West 1 sc Street
Laurel, MT 59044
Dear Ms. Plecker,
The following is a detail of our request for a zoning variance in reference to the lot we
own off of East 11 Street and Montana Avenue known as Mountain View, D02627 in
the county tax records.
In an effort to be able sell this property for construction of a new single family dwelling,
which it is currently zoned for, we are asking for the following variance to the City of
Laurel's zoning, specifically that the lot could be built upon without completing
thel50'of East 11 Street on the North edge of our property, where currently Nutting ■"�
drain flows as an open ditch year round. Along with the variance a formal agreement
stating that in the future any SID to continue East 11 Street to undeveloped property to
the east of us would go uncontested.
With access to our lot already available via the alley and not hindering any city services
including emergency and sanitation vehicles it appears the situation is special and
peculiar in the fact that East 11 may never continue through due to planning and
developing issues of the past.
Referring to Laurel Municipal Code Chapter 17.60.020 we feel that if granted the
variance, currently it would not affect adversely or injure or result in injustice to others
and as stated above, in the event completion of East 11 would be beneficial to future
development, the Mountain View's property owner's share of completing the street
would go uncontested in an SID.
I appreciate your consideration and if you have any questions feel free to contact me
@855 -2875.
Sincerely,
.� - __._ _
Sam Robertus
Robertus Properties LLC
tt
'ad te`•I
'- r
I / f { 1 (
E �t5 - ) ( S ee - a A/ i 1 ya ;.. 0 140 c,►414
A
k at "°c i % c , VI eQsert •
I eQSe wte� ` 4. tel $IEditNiglhkl4 } _ — —_
H
opt • 3 i
• _
3 ; • I
assssssarssg ;S*matstsas%sal ssti
s 1-
.. . g .
g n ats c . 1 it
n
I.
d -
•, - • - tt �' ss
• . II MI
.. _ 110...4r. C! I 4W4
- ' q ,
' .. t 2 e. 1
0 � ect !
I
•
1 ` Ia. t. .
a
y , , 1 a
�••••••••►e•w∎ •••.•r•-•• 4 . 1
ii 642W e
•
; w-
yrf w WAN wr 32
•�i• , JJ
. 4 6 :
� q : 4 11 ..
r Is :
�1 .►_w -P.rN r.• ••. •i•, .. �r1 �. 1•••►1.i.•
•
17.60.0'0 •
('hapter 17.60 4. t Mess the hardship was created tr.
someone other thzAn the owner:
1() \IN(: CY)NiitISSIO\ < ! it 1; the \nrl;lnce would be within
',Sections: the spirit. intent. purpose and general plan
17.60.010 Powers and duties. of flue title:
b. Unless the variance would not affect
17.60.020 Land use variances
adversely or insure or result in injustice to
issuance and denial — others: and
Determination prc►ccdure. 7. Onlinarih unless the applicant
owned the property prior to the enactment
17.60.010 Powers and duties. of this title or amendment. Prior code
The city- county planning board shaft
1ti.'t .1s ;A ✓on111Q whosc duty it
shall he to recommend the boundaries of
the various original districts and appropri-
ate regulations to be enforced therein. (Prior
cede * 1 t.0S.n10
17.60.020 Land use variances issuance
and denial — Determination
procedure.
A. It shall be the duty of the zoning
commission to authorize. upon appeal in
specific cases, such land use variances from
the terms of the /oiling ordinances as will
not be contrary to the public interest, where.
c ►wing to special conditions. a literal enforce-
.••••s
mein of the provisions of the ordinances or
regulations will result in unnecessary hard-
ship, and so that the spirit of the ordinances
,hall be observed and substantial justice
done. The zoning commission shall, after a
public: hearing'. make <1 seconi and ►tion t�+
the mayor and council concerning the land
use variance application.
B. The zoning commission shall not
recommend that land use variances he
granted:
. Unless the denial would constitute
an unnecessary and unjust invasion of the
right of property:
2. Unless the grant relates to a condi-
tion or situation special and peculiar to the
:Applicant;
3. Unless the basis is somethintt more
than a mere financial loss to the owner;
432.1 ups, �:,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monica Plecker, City Planner
FROM: Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director
DATE: March 21, 2012
RE: Variance Request from Sam Robertus
Typically, when a developer wants to build residential houses on a city parcel that does not have
any improvements, the required improvements are included during development of the parcel.
These improvements are usually water and sewer lines, curb, gutter, and road improvements needed
to serve the newly constructed buildings.
Mr. Robertus has informed city staff of his intent to develop a single family home on his parcel that
has an undeveloped city street right of way. In 2005, the previous owner of the parcel signed a
waiver of protest for the city to form a special improvement district for improvements during
annexation to the city; therefore, Mr. Robertus does not need to offer a waiver of protest in
exchange for a variance allowing him not to complete the necessary improvements.
The road improvements needed on East 11 Street are not the typical situation, as the road right of
way encompasses the Nutting Drain Ditch and also a small irrigation ditch. These two features in
the right of way will involve considerable engineering design and construction costs associated with
building a street over these ditches. I have not been made aware that Mr. Robertus or the previous
owners have contracted with an engineering firm to evaluate the true costs for design, as well as
cost estimates for the improvements that are typically associated with developing parcels for home
construction within the city limits. In the future, the city would need to contract with engineering
services to develop the engineering plans, and the costs would be reimbursed by a special
improvement district. The necessary improvements will probably not happen until there is further
development of parcels to the east of this property, which is currently outside the city limits, in
order to make it affordable to many property owners instead of just one.
The Public Works Department cannot grant permission to waive the requirements for the
improvements, due to assumed costs and the fact that the adopted policies, as outlined in the
Standards for Public Works Improvements, do not include a policy for drain or irrigation ditches.
From my experience, this type of request requires city council action. In order for Mr. Robertus to
proceed without incorporating the required improvements into the construction of the planned
single family dwelling, the Laurel City Council must consider and ultimately approve the request.
The necessary utilities, such as water distribution lines and sewer collection lines, are in the
adjacent improved rights of way on East 11 Street and the alley adjacent to Mr. Robertus' parcel.
n Expansion of the utilities does not seem necessary if the road improvements are not completed.
Prior to the extension of East 11 Street, the water and sewer lines must be extended if the city is to
provide services to parcels that are adjacent to Mr. Robertus' parcel, specifically Magnus
Subdivision, 2 filing, north of the platted right of way for East 11 Street. I have included a utility
map that shows the approximate location of these utilities as they exist today.
My last comment is that the manual for Standards for Public Works Improvements (Part 5.5,
Section 8.4) defines an alley as "a secondary city street which services primarily as a service access
to individual lots ". Mr. Robertus is planning to use the alley adjacent to his parcel as the sole access
for a single family home and, therefore, does not comply with the definitions as defined in adopted
policies and city code. In my experience, approval of any requests that differ from these city
policies and codes can only be granted by the Laurel City Council. I have included a copy of the
above mentioned policy to this memorandum.
Sincerely,
ip
urt Markegard
Public Works Director
Cc: Heidi Jensen, CAO
Attached: Utility Map
Standards for Public Works Improvements (Part 5.5, Section 8.4)
•••■
8 STREET CLASSIFICATION
8.1 Collector Street
A collector street is a street used for major traffic flow. Access to residential lots
should be discouraged, and access to business Tots should require turning lanes.
8.2 Residential Collector Street
A Residential Collector Street is a street designed to provide main ingress and
egress to a subdivision or neighborhood. Traffic flows of 400 vehicles per day to
4500 vehicle per day.
8.3 Local Residential Street
A Local Residential Street is a street which provides access to individual lots or
areas. Cul -de -sacs are within this category. Traffic flow of 400 vehicles per day or
Tess.
8.4 Alley
An Alley is a secondary City street which services primarily as a service access to
individual Tots.
8.5 Bicycle Path and /or Walkway
A Bicycle Path and /or Walkway is an access way for non - motored use, primarily for
recreational use.
9 HALF -WIDTH STREETS, ALLEYS, HILLSIDE STREETS
9.1 Half -Width Street
When warranted, half -width streets may be permitted by the City Council along the
boundary of a subdivision or the property of the developer. Such street shall be
designed and improved by the developer as follows:
9.1.12 The right -of -way shall have a minimum width of 40 feet.
9.1.2 Surfaced roadbed shall be 28 feet in width, or one -half of the surfaced
improvement that would be required for the development of the street at its
ultimate width, whichever is greater.
9.2 Alleys
Alleys shall be designed and improved by the developer.
•-•N 9.2.1 Right of way shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width.
9.2.2 There shall be no intersecting alleys.
W:\ 0703\010\2 2003Revisions\standards 2_18.doc 5.5
August 2002 Revised: 2/03
/'
1 T 1 e l ►� M I I ,o— .,- i. ; 1 I 11
i .�
1 1 I• m a i -- — 1 '
r ► i � I _ I 1
8I I I I r - ----- e i _ _—�
/^ 4-1 1 s 154' I
L I a �— t _
1 711-
. I 1 l e i e I j =IC 1
, � 1
- r:cz
T 11 I I 1 i 1 I I � ' 1 1 I–. 1 -' L l—+ I I' w �`
...
\ I
6 ---1-116 B I I — 1 1 `1
L I \
1
t-- --
I — w \ \: \ l'-
,
1 . 1 1 � , .
al i 1 8 ,
[ 1 1 P 7 — 1
1
I V U
Ts I 1 -
..1 L._ 1 1 2 I I i I , _ - iei ' -. ( it 11
� �: r - - -- !- I , I
1 1 ii.f j i
1 I I 1 _1 _ 1 I p S
-_ -w _ 1 ' 1 ,
r ? � I I h 1 I 511 '1 fi I 1
� i I i., T _ 2 - 1 I I 1+ I
> I 1 \ 1 2 VJ 1 1 i
. 71 — T I ' -- , 4 't
; 0 B ,,,,, , ,:iii , 1,,,,,
L
■••• ze5' _ . 319' - - =a 1
--- - - - - -- - - - - - -- 1 . p I I 1 e ) +— if ' _ /l 1 � 11
i
I,
L �I
' I
LI
r '
e REAT NI�RTH 1 N �` ` `\ 1 —� -- �- 1
I -- - \" � 1
I ! i I
1 ____L__--ri I ' '\, F .I( \ \
�I
` I 1
I I (I H cc . ',y, ia I
' / ---_j •- v b + i ' a a , silui p + i � -I
1 ttl I , L _ ,414111114.1111111.4 17 I I
II-
, c .1% I I .' ,,,,,,, .3 ' -- 1
1 Sp' ,I I . i! _ ' _