Laserfiche WebLink
sU-86-16 page 2 <br /> e. The street name "Graystone Street" is not acceptable due <br /> to a similar street name in the Lodi area. Also, it is <br /> recommended that the north-south portion of "Carolina <br /> Street" be given a different name. <br /> f. It appears that Lots 7 and 117 do not meet the minimum <br /> lot width of 60-feet. <br /> g. Lots 45 , 46 , 47 and 85 have narrow rear yards. These <br /> should be redesigned or plot plans submitted to demon- <br /> strate that proposed residential units can meet the set- <br /> back requirements. <br /> h. The note along Chestnut Street for "restricted area" should <br /> be "restricted access. " <br /> i. The asterick for the street cross-section is not explained. <br /> j . The project boundary dimensions differ from the original <br /> tentative map. Which is correct? A note should be added <br /> to the amended map indicating the data source. <br /> Recommendation: <br /> Submit a revised Amended Tentative Map to reflect the Planning <br /> Division comments and comments of other agencies. The revised <br /> map should be submitted not later than May 8 , 1987 . <br /> Additional Comments in Response to Terry Piazza letter of <br /> April 1 , 1987 <br /> Conditions of Approval l (d) and l (e) relate to visual screening <br /> and landscaping. As indicated in Comment No. 4 (d) above, the <br /> additional requirements were designated to upgrade the subdivision <br /> entrance. It was the Planning Division' s understanding that the <br /> improvements would be done by the developer and maintained by <br /> a Homeowner' s Association. <br /> We do not have a problem with a "low maintenance" median strip, <br /> but believe it should be a planter as opposed to concrete. <br /> BCB:Jdh <br />