Laserfiche WebLink
15-3763 <br /> June 16,2016 <br /> Page 8 of 8 <br /> City Engineer Comments <br /> The City Engineer has provided a number of general and detailed comments (Exhibit C) which <br /> the developer is advised to review and address. It should be noted that those comments react to <br /> the layout as presented and do not specifically address the issues noted by staff with regard to the <br /> use of non-compliant shared driveways versus roads and cul-de-sacs. While a number of the <br /> Engineer's comments will be easily resolved, the basic site layout concerns noted by staff have <br /> the potential to result in the need for additional engineering review. <br /> Summary of Issues for Discussion <br /> 1. The proposed lot configuration does not meet minimum code requirements for access <br /> because it does not include private roads and cul-de-sacs meeting City standards. Does <br /> Planning Commission find any justification for variances to allow the layout as <br /> proposed? <br /> 2. The proposed configuration results in the creation of back lots, some of which do not <br /> meet minimum back lot code standards with regard to lot area. <br /> 3. The proposed configuration creates back lots which require 150% of the RR-1B setback <br /> standards. The result is that for some lots the proposed house locations will not meet <br /> those setback requirements. <br /> 4. Are there other concerns that need to be addressed? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff does not support the proposed configuration. Staff recommends that the applicant be <br /> advised to consider revising the plan to provide for conforming roads and cul-de-sacs <br /> Planning Commission should hold the Public Hearing and receive comments from the public. <br /> Staff would recommend that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to address the issues. <br /> Another option would be to forward to Council to determine whether there is any Council <br /> support for the proposed configuration. <br />