02-10-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r-;. V:/ ?'■ rL •V [;• l5 ‘f^ I •• I. f !|' >-■ ?:«* I II f'¥ Zoning File #1706 January 15 r 1992 Page 2 1,Council concurred that a road corridor tc *■ need not be provided with this subdivisa eastern boundary lines. 1. ce Line a ^ ong the 2.It would not be necessary to extend a private road or private driveway to the Asac and Deters prop'^’ty to the northwest, although access could be provide at i la_er date through Outlot B if necessary. 3.A private i oad shall be construi:ued thr.»';gli ending with a loop configuration as opposed t de-sac in an attempt to save as many trees, and impact on the steeper elevations. : 1 -- -1 . ze 4.The private driveway within Out .lot D was to serve three residences, two within the subdivision - Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3, and tne property to the immediate east (property was re '>tly sold by former owner S. McCloud). Mr. Knapp has been asked by the new owner to provide an access easement north of the original 60' access corridor platted along the south edge of the property. Staff will ask for confirmation that the easen*«'\ t is locateu wirhin the expanded portion of Out loo D as it abutts the eastern boundary line. 5.Applicant to grant an access easement tc the Nature Conservancy property. Basea cn configuration of Lot i, Block 1, access may nave to t><- prc’^ided vja Outlot A. This accer« must be defined prior to fxnal plat approval. It will be necessary prote'~t the alternate septic site v.'ithin Lot 1, Block 1 during road ccrstruction and at the time a drive is installed to Conservancy lands. 6.Drainage easements shall be taken over portion of Outlot B that separates Lots 1, Block 1 anJ; 2 and over the drainageway running from the south t>*j the north within Lot 1, Block 1. Review of Planned Residential Developnent Conceptually the City • 'anted approval for the development of the prooerty under a Pla... ed Residential Develcpmerit based on the topographic constraint'^ and the unusual conficuration of the property. Applicant h'"*" failed to ask for special setb*'ck consideration in the fi ng of the PRD. Review Exhibit G. ihe building pads at 2 to 3 acre areas will require speci^Ll setback consideration. Staff would recommend that 2 acre zoning standards (50' front and rear and 30' side) be considered racher than the current RR-IA (100' front arid rear and 50' side). The building sites are limited by steep topographies, location of drainageways requiring speciar setbacks, configuration of