Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />Zoning File #1617 <br />January 16, 1991 <br />Page 3 <br />2. Under the current proposal, if the future developer of <br />Lot 4 proposed to access to Outlet B, becoming the third <br />user of Outlet B, would the City allow that without it being <br />a full-fledged private road with cul-de-sac? The same <br />question could be asked about Lot 3, although there is less <br />likelihood of changing that existing driveway due to septic <br />conflicts. <br />3. The City Engineer has briefly reviewed the sketch plan <br />and driven the existing road, and makes the following <br />initial comments: <br />A, Perhaps the developer should be responsible for <br />upgrading portions of Lyman Avenue to the standard 28' <br />paved width and construct a cul-de-sac where <br />applicants' existing driveway joins the easement road. <br />He notes that steep topography in the area of the <br />dedicated cul-de-sac further east would hinder cul-de- <br />sac construction at that site. <br />B. Certain design aspects of the existing easement <br />road do not meet City standards for radius of curve, <br />hence there is some question as to whether parts of the <br />road should be relocated. <br />If Outlot B was widened to 50' and provided with a 100' <br />diameter cul-de-sac at its west end, it is likely that applicants <br />would lose at least one lot. <br />Septic Issues - <br />The applicants currently have a failing septic system which <br />needs replacement, hence both a primary and alternate site have <br />been located within Lot 3. Each of the three new building lots <br />has both a primary and alternate drainfield site located. On Lot <br />2, the alternate site is 60' from a low ponding area which <br />appears to have been artificially created by a dam or berm at its <br />west end. If it filled up, this area would be about 1/4 acre. <br />This alternate drainfield site sits significantly higher in <br />elevation than this intermittent ponding area, hence staff would <br />not expect this pond to affect the septic system or vise versa. <br />The applicants have not completed a topograhical survey of <br />the property, however, the site evaluator indicates that the <br />drainfield sites meet code requirements for maximum slope and are <br />capable of supporting 5 bedroom homes. We are also advised that <br />the tested sites are probably the only feasible sites on the <br />property. Physical protection of the sites as well as covenant <br />restrictions will likely be a necessary part of this plat. <br />4