03-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Zoning File #2339 February 13,1998 Page 6 2. Should the portion of such a road be constructed by the applicant at this time? With or without a temporary cul-de-sac? 3. 4. takes it over when the future connection is made? If this is platted as a public road and the City maintains it, what is Planning Cornmission s recommendation regarding parking restrictions or admitting access to local residents on y, given the proximity to the Maxwell Bay access? Staff Recommendation 1. 2. 5. 6. 7. Platting of a dedicated roadway along the entire length of the south bound^ ^ r requited. The dedicated roadway can be 42' in width if it is confirmed that the City has roadway rights over the 8' adjacent easement. The construction of a 28’ paved roadway with a temporary 80’ dimeter cul-de-sac located approximately between Lots 1 and 2 is recommended, based on fire department "^eds code standards. Note that if this was being proposed as a 2-lot plat, the need to corridor for future through road would still exist, but code would not require the establishment of a road and cul-de-sac at this time, since the threshold for full road status is 3 or more lots. staff recommends that this be maintained as public roadway by the City, but unique circumstance of proximity to the Maxw ell Bay access, limitations on parking an general use by car trailer traffic be considered. No variances should be granted for lot area, lot width, setbacks, or hardcover. If a tem^ cul-de-sac is required, it could be on an easement. Optionally, the hardcover associated with the cul-de-sac would not count against the hardcover allotment for the respective lots. -fhe applicant should address all grading and drainage issues, and develop a plan for a water quality pond on the site per the Engineer ’s recommendation. The standard park dedication fee should be required. The standard drainage and utility easements should be required.