Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Council Action continued <br />Page 3 <br />September 18,1997 <br />#2279/2280 G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - 3 Lot Subdivision and Right- <br />_____of-Way Vacation - Preliminary Plat Approval___________________________ <br />longer needed at that location. The City would grant the easement for Lot 2's septic system <br />with such a stipulation. <br />Planning Commission also recommended that in the short term, applicant should bear the cost <br />of City-directed sight line improvements to that curve, which improvements may include <br />selective tree cutting and vegetation clearing, as well as potential regrading of the slope <br />adjacent to the road (as long as such work does not negatively impact the drainfield site on <br />Lot 2). <br />Planning Commission left it to Council's discretion as to whether this subdivider should pay <br />for a general upgrade of Lyman Avenue. The City Engineer in his sketch plan review noted <br />that Lyman Avenue is only 15' in paved width east of Smith Avenue, and should be upgraded <br />as a condition of this subdivision. Applicant has suggested that the traffic impact of these two <br />additional home sites should not force him to bear the cost of upgrading the road for the entire <br />neighborhood, and further noted that if sewer is provided in Lynian Avenue in the future, the <br />road will be tom up and replaced at that time, and assessed fairly to all abutting property <br />owners. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br />Please review the Notice of Planning Commission Action dated September 16, 1997. <br />Applicant's attorney has submitted a letter dated September 18 which indicates a slightly <br />different recollection of the Planning Commission action of September 15 on certain issues. <br />Due to this application being expedited at applicant's request. Planning Commission minutes <br />are not yet available. <br />Issues for Potential Discussion <br />Council is requested to consider the following issues for potential discussion; <br />1.To what extent should the applicants be responsible for upgrades of Lyman <br />Avenue? Does Council agree with Planning Commission's recommendation that <br />applicants at least bear the cost of sight line improvements at the curve? Should <br />applicants be responsible for other road upgrades? <br />Does Council agree with the recommendation that Outlot A be established as a <br />buffer outlot for 1290 Lyman Avenue, either with restrictive covenants and under