Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />C' <br />discussion .'ith the County, the access at the alley intersection <br />was considered very acceptable. Staff has presented options for <br />a shared access road, the applicant is encouraged to present <br />their own plan for an access road. <br />Septic Testing <br />Lot 1 need not be tested. Alternate septic testing <br />shall be required for Lot 2 and 3 because of the severe limits <br />placed on dry contiguous lands within the already defined <br />building envelope. <br />Staff Reccnaendation <br />To table the proposed 3 lot plat subject to the <br />applicant or applicant's surveyor submitting the following: <br />1.Designate all wetlands, existing structures and <br />contiguous dry land area of Lot 2 to the west of the <br />proposed road easment of 30 feet. <br />2. Alternate septic testing for Lot 2 and 3. <br />3.Present your plan for the use of the riparian tract. <br />If more than single ownership use is desired, please <br />have your surveyor confirm lineal footage of <br />shoreline . <br />4.Access is the critical issue for this review. The <br />City asks that applicant consider the staff <br />proposals that deal with access on a more <br />comprehensive level. it should be noted for the <br />record that it was the City's understanding that the <br />Miner properties were to be sold independently as a <br />convenience to Mrs. Miner. A major platting would <br />have taken far too much time. The City continued to <br />approve access to the homestead parcel via the <br />existing driveway easement with the recent lot line <br />rearrangement. We are dealing at a minimum with <br />access to four properties. Lot 3 as well as the <br />Miner homestead property must now be served by the <br />same road that serves Lots 1 and 2 and possibly the <br />Anderson and Gardiner properties. <br />4 <br />J