08-18-1979 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2279 August 14, 1997 Page 7 acreage? To what extent is it appropriate that applicants be responsible for upgrade of Lyman Avenue east of Outlot B, given the proposed driveway for Lot 4 extending to the east boundary of the plat? Is the existing driveway serving Lot 3 acceptable, or should the applicants be required to relocate that drivewav to exit Lot 3 at Outlot A? Staff Recommendation Given that the septic sites shown on the preliminary plat are not consistent with the septic testing reports on file, it is impossible for staff to conclude whether the proposed drainfield sites and lot lines are feasible. Planning Commission is advised, therefore, to consider this review as a sketch plan. This revised plan does address some of the issues indicated by staff and Planning Commission in the June review, but it also raises a significant number of new questions. Perhaps the most vexing question is whether the City should consider Lot 4 without a sccondaiy drainfield site, or whether the review should be discontinued until a viable proposal is submitted. It would be helpful to the applicants for the Planning Commission to, as a minimum, address the following questions for the applicants: 1. 2. WTiether Lot 4 should be eliminated from the plat. Whether a back lot area variance would be granted for Lot 2 if Outlot B is converted to a driveway corridor rather than a road, and whether bad lot setback variance might be granted. 3.Whether applicants should be responsible for upgrade of Lyman Avenue if Lot 4 accesses any where other than Outlot B. 4.^^Tlether a requirement of the plat will be relocation of the driveway serving Lot 3 to an access point on Outlet A. 5.Whether the location of the house on Lot 37 to the southwest has an impact on Planning Commission's view ’ of the variances, given that one legitimate criteria for granting variances is w’hether or not granting them has a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. 6. Whether Planning Commission has any concerns about the proposed lane vacation. I