01-21-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1706 January 15, 1992 Page 2 1.Council concurred that a road corridor to the Luce Line need not be provided with this subdivision along the eastern boundary lines. 2.It would not be necessary to extend a private road or private driveway to the Asao and Deters property to the northwest, although access could be provided at a later date through Outlot B if necessary. 3.A private road shall be constructed through Outlot C ending with a loop configuration as opposed to a cul- de-sac in an ai L jmpt tc save as many trees and minimize impact on the steeper elevations. m 4.The private drivev/ay within Outlot D was to serve three residences, two within the subdivision - Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3, and the property to the immediate east (property was recently sold by former owner S. McCloud). Mr. Knapp has been asked by the new owner to provide an access easement north of the original 60' access corridor platted along the south edge of the property. Staff will ask for confirmation that the easement is located within the expanded portion of Outlot D as it abutts the eastern boundary line. 5.Applicant to grant an access easement to the Nature Conservancy property. Based cn the configuration of Lot 1, Block 1, access may have to be provided via Outlot A. This access must be defined prior to final plat approval. It will be necessary to protect the alternate septic site within Lot 1, Block 1 during road construction and at the time a drive is installed to Conservancy lands. 6.Drainage easements shall be taken over portion of Outlot B that separates Lots 1, Block 1 and 2 and over the drainageway running from the south to the north within Lot 1, Block 1. Review of Planned Residential Develofxnent Conceptually the City granted approval for the development of the property under a Planned Residential Development based on the topographic constraints and the unusual configuration of the property. Applicant has failed to ask for special setback consideration in the filing of the PRD. Review Exhibit G. The building pads at 2 to 3 acre areas will require special setback consideration. Staff would recommend that 2 acre zoning standards (50' front and rear and 30' side) be considered rather than the current RR-IA (100' front and rear and 50' side). The building sites are limited by steep topographies, location of dralnageways requiring special setbacks, configuration of L -- - « ’