Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1619 <br />February 14, 1991 <br />Page 9 <br />a) front setback for Lot 1; }0»Z.Z <br />direct driveway access to unimproved private roadway not <br />meeting City standards for Lot 3j /1,3'Z. / <br />c) drainfield sites that do not strictly meet wetland <br />setback or slope requirements; x>e^c>r:. • <br />t'i r«c-. 2..3>(V <br />d) variance for lack of approved cul-de-sac within the <br />public or private roadway serving the properties <br />e) technically, a variance for allowing slopes in excess of <br />18% as creditable dry bulldable area (the City has rarely <br />made use of this code section, but this may be the time to <br />use it); i/.0‘^.\*4 <br />f) further, depending on Planning Commission's <br />interpretation of access requirements, a variance may be <br />needed for the width of Outlot B and the lack of a cul-de- <br />sac for Outlot B. !(,%% <5^ . LJ <br />I <br />L <br />g) Lots 1 and 2 require a variance for lack of frontage on <br />a public road, z-o^/fjc coOtr ap Ler> <br />Copies of the various pertinent code sections have been <br />attached for reference purposes. <br />Staff Recosmendation - <br />Staff recommends as follows: <br />1.The developer should be required to upgrade the portions of <br />Lyman Avenue abutting his property and within the current <br />public right-of-way. <br />2.The developer should be required to dedicate additional <br />right-of-way over the existing portions of Lyman Avenue <br />within his property boundaries. <br />3.Additional land in the southeast quadrant in Lot 4 should be <br />dedicated for right-of-way to obtain a 275' radius of curve <br />for the roadway. This requirement should only be considered <br />for a variance if applicant agrees to post the road at a 25 <br />MPH 1imit. The issue of sight distance may be less <br />significant because most traffic leaving Outlot B will not <br />be turning left across traffic coming from the south, but <br />will be turning right. <br />! <br />'