Laserfiche WebLink
r. <br />MEMORANDUM M. <br />Memo To :Michelle Hren, City Planner <br />From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer <br />Date :April 25, 1989 <br />Subject :8406 Red Oak Drive , <br />Minor Subdivision Request <br />I have briefly reviewed the Surveyor's Certificate submitted for <br />this minor subdivision. There are a number of items required <br />undei section 42.07 of the Code which are not on this <br />certificate. The certificate should be revised to include the <br />following: <br />1. The existing legal description of the property to be <br />divided and the book and page or reception number. <br />2. The address of the owner. <br />3. North arrow on the drawing. <br />4. Existing zoning of the property and adjacent <br />properties. <br />5. Total area of plat and of each lot. <br />6. Dedication of Right of Way on Red Oak Drive and <br />Fairchild Avenue. Red Oak Drive should be 33 feet from <br />centerline and Fairchild Should be 30 feet from <br />centerline. This is consistent with the plat drawing, <br />but the dedicatory language is missing. <br />7. Lot lines of adjacent parcels. <br />In addition, the rear lot lines of the adjacent parcels do not <br />align with the proposed rear lot line to be created as <br />recommendad in the code. This may cause future problems with <br />utilities. It appears that the existing house is situated where <br />the rear lot line should be. If the existing house is to stay, <br />the rear lot line must be offset from adjacent lot lines. This <br />situation needs to be reviewed carefully to determine the <br />passible impacts of the offset rear lot line. <br />As there are no present utilities in the rear areas, it may be <br />appropriate to consider approval conditioned on future <br />resubdivision if the current structure is damaged beyond repair <br />or demolished for any reason. At that point in time the rear lot <br />lines would have to be consistent with adjacent lots. If the <br />offset line is not considered a problem for future utilities this ' <br />condition would not be necessary. <br />