City Council Minutes 1993 09 22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hornbostel was concerned about the new regulations, such as the ADA laws, to be abided by. Her concern was the width of the sidewalks on either side of the narrow street and the curb cuts. She felt that only one house needed to be built there with RR zoning. Open space dedication also concerned her. Zukaitis stated, as far as open space, that it's difficult to dedicate a parcel that is functional, so he felt it should be a cash-in-lieu. He wasn't familiar with the ADA regulations. Howard didn't like the multiple dwellings with 15' of street, or even 20'. He stated that, unless Zukaitis could come up with a way of getting much better access, he would not be in favor of this. Davidson asked for the required road frontage of R-L, RE, and RR zoning. Wood: Municipal Code speaks in terms of lot frontage, rather than street frontage. Lot Frontage is fairly minimal under the design standards: 50' at property line at the street and no less than 35' on a cul-de- sac. The lot frontage is measured at the font setback. For an RE zoned district that would be 100', RR would be 120', R-L would be 70'. The minimum type of design scenario would be a lot fronting a street not on a cul-de-sac. You could have a 50' property line, but then your site property lines would have to skew out at the front setback, which would be 40' in a RR zoned district. You'd have to double the size in 40' to 100'. Davidson: Wood: If the surrounding undeveloped area, both annexed and unannexed, was all within the city, is there a solution to the access problem? I don't see where we could achieve a second independent access into the parcel. Davidson's concern was with the turn around radius for the Fire Department. Wood: That would rely on dedication from the adjoining property to the south. To the south is undeveloped, about 9