01-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M4-2971 3m-J]4«Wal«rto«aRMd iMaary 14,2W4 Setbacks: The preliminary plat drawing has been annotated by stafT in Exhn>it B2 to accurately depict the setbacks that would apply to this subdivision. Adequate but somewhat limited area exists within each proposed lot to allow the construction of single family residences. □ Driveway EstMiskmemt: Alternatives Ar* A primary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has impacts on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the driveway to parallel the creek within the 75* hardcover/grading setback. Assuming that a wetland/creek crossing within Lot I would ultimately be approved, then the proposed 30* corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the south half of Lot I, is a reasonable plan. However, in order for the driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlet A is shortened and Lot 1 extends southward past the base of the hill. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot w idth variance for Lot I. As an alternative, suff has suggested that access to Lot 1 be sought from the Boyer property to the west of it, avoiding any new wetland impacts or new creek crossings. However, such a driveway would require tiie cooperation of the owners of the property to the west, which apparently is not likely to occur at this time. The potential issues with this alternative include; • Possible significani neeaiive impacts to the adjacent Boyer building site by constructing a driveway through it. • City codes w ould require that access through Boyer be via an Outlot, requiring new approvals of preliminary plat. • City codes would require that for a level of three users, the Boyer driveway would have to become a road, bringing significant extra costs to the table, including issues w iih the width of the wetland crossing. A further alternative that obviously docs not meet the goals of the applicant, is to merely sell off the back portion of the property to an adjacent landowner as additional land, forgoing buildability north of the creek. Driveway and Creek Crossing Design. As of this writing a design for the driveway has not been submitted. Such a design w ill entail vanances which cannot be quantified without such a design for review . The application remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided and reviewed before preliminary ’ plat approval can be granted. □ Park Dedication A park fee of S200 was paid for the existing Ul 1 w hen it was created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2, on the basis that Lot 2 had previously had a house on it. Thineen yrars later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived in since some time in the 1980s.