Laserfiche WebLink
«04-2971 3220-3240 Waiertowo Road <br />January 14,2004 <br />faicS <br />Setbacks: The preliminary plat dra>fcnng has been annotated by staff in Exhibit B2 to accurately <br />depict the setbacks that would apply to this subdivision. <br />Adequate but somewhat limited area exists within each proposed lot to allow the construction of <br />single family midences. <br />□ Driveway EsttMiskment: Alternatives Are Limited <br />A primary issue for development of Lx>t 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly <br />boundary of Lot 2 has impacts on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current <br />proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the driveway to parallel the <br />creek within the 7S' hardcover/grading setback. Assuming that a wetland creek crossing w ithin Lot <br />1 would ultimately be approved, then the proposed 30' corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and <br />skirting the hillside in the south half of Lot 1, is a reasonable plan. However, in order for the <br />driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlot A is shortened and Lot 1 extends <br />southward past the base of the hill. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot width variance <br />for Lot 1. <br />As an alternative, staff has suggested that access to Lot 1 be sought from the Boyer property to the <br />west of it, avoiding any new wetland impacts or new creek crossings. How-cver, such a dhvew-ay <br />would require the cooperation of the owners of the property to the west, which apparently is not <br />likely to occur at this time. The potential issues wnth this alternative include; <br />• Possible significant negative impacts to the adjacent Boyer building site by constructing <br />a driveway through it. <br />• City codes would require that access through Boyer be via an Outlot, requiring new <br />approvals of preliminary plat. <br />- City codes would require that for a level of three users, the Boyer dnveway would have <br />to become a road, bringing significant extra costs to the table, including issues with the w idih <br />of the wetland crossing. <br />A further alternative that obviously does not meet the goals of the applicant, is to merely sell off the <br />back portion of the property to an adjacent landowner as additional land, forgoing buildability north <br />of the creek. <br />Drivew ay and Creek Crossing Desipi. As of this writmg a design for the driveway has not been <br />submitted. Such a design will entail variances which cannot be quantified without such a design for <br />review. The application remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided <br />and review ed before preliminary plat approval can be granted. <br />Park Dedication <br />A park fee of S200 was paid for the existing Lot 1 when it was created in 1990 pa the ordinance in <br />place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2, on the basis that Lot 2 had previously had a <br />house on it. Thirteen years later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived in since <br />some time in the 1980s.