DCPREZ-0000-03637 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dane County Zoning Committee -2- March 28, 1986 In acquiring the land, the City and the Baiers mutually agreed that the best way to meet the access needs and the Baier's financial need was for the City to acquire all the land near the Loeprich Lane street end (a critical area for connecting City trails and open space lands to the north and to the south) . The City then provided the Baiers with a 30-foot easement for their driveway--essen- tially the same access they had before. Furthermore, the City agreed to provide the Baiers a new driveway to Knutson Drive when that street is developed as part of the Westport Meadows Plat. This will replace Loeprich Lane and will be a substantially better access for the Baiers because it will be a much shorter and flatter route. By eliminating the dead-end public street, there is also no need for a cul-de-sac to allow for public turnaround. We could propose other solutions to meet the stated standards, but they would be impractical and very undesirable. Neither the Baiers nor the City nor the Town of Westport really wants to own, build, or maintain a public street and cul-de-sac into this natural area. It would cause nothing but extra expense and undesirable public access. Based on our park experience, a dead-end street into a remote area would be used for undesirable late-night activity. It would be unfair to force the Baiers to have to deal with this kind of problem. They have had satisfactory access in the past, and we have provided them with a better access route for the future. As a public review board, you are right to be concerned about the precedent that waiving this requirement may set. However, because the land is being purchased for the sole purpose of open space protection with no additional development possible; and because we will be eliminating the dead-end street and its turnaround requirements, I believe that the requirement should be waived. Furthermore, I would suggest that these two criteria (no possible development and no dead-end turnaround needed) could be applied to other situations where providing frontage is undesirable. I expect that there will be a few other situations in the future which are identical to this one--public agencies acquiring open space land but leaving resi- dences within it. In summary, I request that you waive the street frontage requirement in this case, and allow the lot division and rezoning to proceed. To require a public street or cul-de-sac into this natural area would unnecessarily create a maintenance and enforcement problem which would be borne more by the Baiers than by any public agency. Sincerely, \ Daniel R. Stapay Superintendent of Parks DRS:SW:br cc: John Baier Gus Pappas, Real Estate Unit attachments