03-10-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r TOE Planning Commission Members FROM: Michael P. Gaffr.on, Assistant 'Zoning Administrator DATE: Oct.. r 18, 1985 SUBJ: #967 John B. A. Idstrom, 2580 Fox Street Preliminary Subdivision - Second Review #968 - Conditional Use Permit for Driveway Crossing Wetlands List of :xhik,' is - Exhiui_t A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Staff Memo of 9-1.1-85 Exhibit F - Survey with proposed driveway location and culvert data Exhibit G - Septic Report (Portions included for clarity) This item was tabled at your September meeting pending receipt of the septic report and information regarding the driveway and culvert; also pending resolution of the question of access from the adjacent private road. The applicant's engineer has submitted a soils report indicating that suitable areas exist on both lots for shallow trench drainfield systems. Fie has also provided information regarding the necessary culvert sizing for the area where the proposed driveway will cross the designated wetland in order to access the rear building site. This information was received too late for the City Engineer to review it. Note also that applicants engineer will be bringing this driveway/culvert application to the MCWD for approval at their November meeting, with no roblems anticipated. We still have no written c:onf irmation that access can be gained via the private road immediately west of the proposed division. Although this is still a possibility, applicant is requesting approval for the driveway to access onto Fox Street directly, to serve both proposed building sites. Access easements across and in favor of each lot would be required. Note that with the proposed driveway location on an easement over Lot 2, only the area west of the driveway easement is considered in the contiguous dry buildable lot are? Assuming a 20' wide easement centered on the driveway as plotted, the area west. of the driveway easement would still be about 2.0 acres. Staff has suggested to the applicant that a driveway along the east property boundary would cause less restrictions for Lot 2 and any future division to the south. As it :.stands now, the proposed driveway would negate the southerly portion as a future building site because the area west of the easement is less than 2 acres. (See 1.0.03 Subd. 6(B) and 11.03 Def. 24) Both lots meet all width and area requirements of the RR-1B zoning district..