Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Zoning File #2324 <br />January 13, 1998 <br />Page 5 <br />would presumably share a driveway access via the Outlot, which is permissible, but the real <br />tradeoff is the addition of a new driveway onto Tonkawa Road which should be avoided. <br />Note that the building envelope for Lot 3 would be quite restrictive since the lot line along <br />Tonkawa Road becomes a front lot line requiring a 30' setback, and with a 10' west side <br />setback, leaves only 66' in functional width. Of greater concern is that Lot 3 would have <br />only 1,600 s.f, of available hardcover allowance, certainly not enough to develop a residence <br />with amenities such as sidewalks, driveways and decks. <br />4. As part of the normal subdivision process, a grading/drainage/stormwater management plan <br />will have to be developed; the standard easements granted; park dedication fees paid; and if <br />a public/private road is constructed, a developers agreement and financial guarantee will be <br />required. <br />Action Requested <br />Provide applicant with direction as to how this property should develop, addressing the following <br />issues; <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Which layout is most appropriate? Of the layouts which require variances to certain City <br />code standards, which, if any, could be granted variances? Are there hardships or unique site <br />conditions that justify variances? <br />If the road with cul-de-sac is the preferred layout, should that road be public or private? <br />Should the cul uc sac dimensional standards be relaxed to some extent to minimize the <br />impact on the neighborhood while preserving the public safety interest (for instance if this <br />is a private cul-de-sac, could it be developed with a small landscape area in the middle, to <br />maintain the continuous loop for emergency vehicle access but minimize the expanse of <br />asphalt)? This would be a bad idea from a Public Works maintenance perspective, is not as <br />good from a public safety standpoint, but may be quite helpful from a neighborhood view- <br />standpoint. , <br />Would hardcover variances be allowed for any of the lots? Assuming the answer is no, under <br />Planning Commission's preferred layout can all three lots be suitably developed within the <br />hardcover standards? Or should this be a two-lot plat?