09-16-1985 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^' h Zoning Fiio #906 September 11, 1985 Page 3 Review of Application The application was first reviewed by the Planning Commission at your April meeting. It was tabled pending resolution of the sewer issue as Planning Commission could not recommend approval of the lot line as pro posed because it placed severe limitations on Parcel A in consideration of required area for future septic expansion. The recommendation would have been to realign the lot line so that the majority of the front yard would have been retained by Parcel A, in addition the sewering of the Crystal Bay neighborhood was to be resolved in a matter of a few months. Planning Commission advised the applicant that if the property is sewered, the lot line rearrangement, as proposed by the applicant, would be acceptable. I have underlined the sections of the subdivision codes that are pertinent to the review of this application, as there appears to be a question as to whether this application is subject to the subdivision rules of the City. The subject properties do not meet the area or lot width standards of the RR-ln zoning district thus the request to rearrange the lot lines requires City approval - we do this consistantly. In review of the classification of subdivisions, it would also appear that the subdivision should also be a plat. The City in the original review allowed a metes and bounds division because are not dealing with torrens property and as in the past, if the descriptions can be kept "simple", we have allowed residents to benefit by keeping surveying costs at a minimum. Staff would normally ask that applicants grant utility easements and deed right-of-way for roadways as conditions of metes and bounds sub division approval. The permanent sewer easements remain unresolved and the engineer states that the new lot line must be approved before final descrl^.tions for easements can he drafted. The issue of variances will be addressed with the resoiition of the utility easements. In regard to the legal descriptions and recent survey that shows the property lines running to the center line of Willow Drive South (formerly County Road 87). Staff had asked that these rights-of-way be deeded to the City. The applicant would prefer granting road utility easements to the City for the 33 feet of roadway. This request can only be granted by the City Council as normal procedure with all motes and bounds subdivisions is to require that owners quit clrim deed right-of-way. On the matter of the shared well, the applicant advised the City that Parcel A has a well on the property that is currently not in use. Staff recommends that yoi approve the metes and bounds subdivision application of Shirley McWill.ams as proposed and a setback variance of 7 feet for garage on Parcel C ba5 ?d on the following findings: J