Laserfiche WebLink
w <br />By his letter dated March 8 and revised plat,. the. applicant <br />is still requesting 8 lots. The revisions made are desirable <br />in that theyincrease lot area and lot depth.. However, the <br />degree of the variance for lot width for lots 1, 2, 7 and 8 <br />has been. increased. The original. plat showed these lots <br />with a lot width of 70 feet versus.. the 60 feet now proposed. <br />While the revisions made are desirable, we would reiterate <br />our original comments that 8 lots may be excessive for this <br />property. The combination of a reduction in right-of-way <br />width, a shortened cul-de-sac and one less lot could <br />eliminate the needfor many of the variances requested, as <br />.noted in the original staff report. <br />Since the last. Board of Review meeting the City-Engneer has <br />indicated the. 50 foot right-of-way width may be appropriate <br />for this short residential street. The app icant had <br />originally requested a variance to have the front yard set- <br />back be 25 feet rather than the 30 feet required.. If the <br />right-of-way width is reduced, we then see no need for the. <br />reduced front yard setback. <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />1, Approval of all variances requested and approval of the. ` <br />preliminary plat PL-114. While a somewhat higher density <br />may be appropriate for this area, we feel 8 lots is <br />inappropr is to . <br />2. Denial of the variances and subsequent denial of the <br />preliminary plat. <br />3. Approval of variances for lot area with the condition <br />-that the..plat include no more than seven (7) lots. <br />STAFF. RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends that VIJ-182 be approved as noted in alternative #3, <br />by waiving the reading and adopting the attached resolution.. <br />~_ ~n- ~ , <br />times F. Winkels <br />City Planner <br />