pf07-054 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

C� 8ryan Lloyd • From: Pat Trudgeon Posted At: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 4:03 PM Conversation: Minor subdivision at 3077-3091 Fairview Ave - Final Review Posted To: DRC - Final Review Subject: Minor subdivision at 3077-3091 Fairview Ave - Final Review In regards to the driveway in the middle of the lot, I don't know if we have anything in the code to require him to remove it. Common sense would say remove it so he can build the house, but they may be able to integrate the existing driveway into the new house/garage. I don't have any additional comments. From: Bryan Lloyd Posted: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:40 PM Subject: Minor subdivision at 3077-3091 Fairview Ave - Final Review Once again, this is the plan for PF07-054. In response to some of the initial review comments: • I think that Mr. Westlund may have removed the silt fencing. • Since the nice monument sign out front is moveable (with a skid-steer loader), he might have pulled that out of the ROW as well. • The survey document shows that the impervious coverage on the developed, northernmost parcel would be under the 30% maximum. • The southernmost garage could be allowed to remain on the property without a variance because it's already a legal, nonconforming structure (i.e., an accessory structure as a principal use). The middle garage, however, would have to be demolished within 60 days of the approval of the minor subdivision and the slab would have to be removed by July 1, 2010. • As for the 5-foot drainage/utility easements shown on the survey, I don't see any previous communication that addressed a reduction from the required 6-foot easements. My guess is that we all assumed that the 5-foot easements were consistent with the code (because why would 6-foot easements be required?); it should be easy enough for the surveyor to re-draw the lines and Mr. Westlund shouldn't really be affected, so I'll indicate that the easements should be changed to 6 feet. • An encroachment agreement will be required to account for the existing garage near the southernmost property line. • The proposal is creating 1 new 25,000 square-foot residential parcel (and shrinking 2 others in the process), which might not trigger the park dedication requirement. PW folks: can you verify on the asbuilts whether existing sewer/water services would cross either of the proposed, shared property boundaries? P&R folks: would you review the proposal against the park dedication ordinance and confirm whether park dedication would, in fact, be required? CD folks: can the middle driveway remain in place once the garage is removed, or does that need to be removed as well?