05-15-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2020 May 3. 1995 Page 3w Area. The Engineer is asking the City to consider future needs. Lot 3^^The existine residence on Lot 2 may either be a ftimre part of the P"“'P“' or mav remain as an accessory structure with expanded living space but with no kttchen. The sttucnite can never ftmction as a separate residential unit because the propeity lacks the area r^relnt foT a non-rental guest house use. The owner will be asked to execute a covenant [f the structure remains as a separate accessory structure to alert all future owners that the Structure could never serve as an independent residential unit. Review Exhibit F. the Environmental Specialist with Schoell a^ Madson has that theVrare no Type I or 2 wetlands within the property. The only wet a«a would be the dniiiiBgcway that intersects Lot 1. During the sketch plan review. Planning Commission members dtsmsed Uie remwa of the existing cul-de-sac and driveway. Note applicant has asked to keep the cul-de-s« oTuX^l^sc^ fcatums. The cul-de-sac is located within both Dits 1 and 2 and wtll receive major impact when the sewer line is installed. It is questionable whether applt^nt wOTid really want to retain the cul-de-sac once the property is offered for development. In fact, it nw prove to be a problem for the future owners of Lots 1 and 2. Because of its propetty, it would never serve as a turnaround for either of the properties. Applicant should be questioned on this point. The Planning Commission was concerned with the issue of tree removal wto the nmnosed location of the future residence building on Lot 1. Please refer to Exhibits B l^^tl?3T?arge mature trees, only 5 would be removed. Applicant wajiB to re^s^ pfaLng Commission that this would not be a matter of clear cutting and that the value of the property is based on the existence of those trees not their removal. The issue of an internal road is not an issue for staff in this review as two of the lots w ____. hv a nrivL road and meet the required lot width along that pnvate road. I tave reposed a copy of the final resolution thatapproved the Stielow Addition pl^ ^TcurC^t i^the resolution that stated the existing driveway to Lot 6 was to be closed off. A curb Ml exists with no record of any safety issues involving the use of that rMdway when ere residence on the property. The driveway will still only serve one suggest that there would be more of a negative impact by r^uiimg tumround on this property when adequate and safe access is already ptovid .