09-18-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Memo #2000 March 16. 1995 Page 3 Description of Request Applicant proposes the division of Lot 1 from legally combined Lots 3, 4 and Outlot 1 for the purpose of allowing the lot to be developed as a single residential unit. As noted above, the lot meets the area and w idth standards and the proposed house meets the required setback standards of the LR-IC District. The total properu' was assessed two water units. There will be a sewer connection charge for the new residence. The rate per the 1995 fee schedule is at $1,284.50 (plus SAC charge of $850). Applicant proposes the use of an existing drive at Casco Point Road that currently serves the principal structure on combined Lots 3 and 4. The improvement plan shows southerly portions of that drive being removed so as to po longer serve the existing residence. The residence w ill continue to achieve its principal access off of Frederick Street. Note encroachment of that driveway within Lot 1. Applicant has the option to either relocate drive within homestead parcel or obtain an access easement over Lot 1 which will have no impact on the area o^ Lot 1 at 34,215 s.f. Background on Tillson’.s Villa Carman Addition Review Exhibits F, G. H and I, there is little information as to the intent of the subdivision which was reviewed by the City in 1961 and filled by the applicant in December 1962. Lot 2 of Tillson’s Villa Carman (2500 Casco Point Road) achieves access via the 20’ outlot and Lot 5 (3585 Frederick Street) achieves direct access off of Frederick Street. Lot 2 has an access easement over a portion of the outlot used to service their residence. The driveway within the outlot does not extend to the principal residence. The principal residence is served by both the drives at Frederick and the one that intersects Lot 1. Sewer/VVater Service The City has no confirmation as to where the existing residence on combined Lots 3 and 4 is connected to both water and sewer. Review Exhibits El and E2. We are certain that the sewer connection comes from Casco Point Road and possibly water from Frederick Street. Note the encroachment of a municipal sewer line through the northeast comer of Lot 4. If the existing residence is connected to sewer at Casco Point Road, a utility easement would have to be granted m favor of applicant’s propeny over Lot 1. Applicant does have the option to reconnect To the sewer line that intersects his property and to allow ihe residence on Lot 1 to connect to either of the two stubs at Casco Point Road. A water sn>' s * .liable for the new residence at Casco Point Road. Applicant must confirm the location of the nookups of both services to die existing residence. In fact, this information should have been provided on survey. Major concern for this current review is the issue of access. Review Exhibit J, based on the topographic information the access from Casco Point would provide little impact to existing development. Topographies are steeper along the south and east sides and there appears to be