11-14-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MOS-3160 October 12,2005 Page 2 Pertinent Code Sections 1.78-305(b): LR-1A Lot Standards The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area (acre)Lot Width (feel) 200 Front Yard (feet)Side Yard (feel)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feci) 2. 78-1370(3): Back Lot Standards (See Exhibit D) 3. 82-2: Subdivision Definitions (See Exhibit D) 4. 82-15: Subdivision Classifications (See Exhibit D) Plat VS Metes and Bounds Division Applicant is proposing a combination and lot line rearrangement involving 3 tax parcels, wift the result that three existing parcels become just two parcels. Staff has reviewed this af^iication with the City Attorney and the applicants, and it was concluded that this could not be done administratively; even though both resulting lots are compliant with LR-1 A minimum width and area requirements, a variety of other zoning and subdivision standards come into play. This reconfiguration of existing tax parcel boundaries essentially creates a new lot. The S-acre parcel is considered as a back lot, and this triggers the need to create a formal 30"- wide outlot corridor for access, in order to be in compliance with the zoning standards. Section 78-1370. Creation of the driveway easement is by defmition a Class 1 Subdivision per 82-15(a), and thereforj could not be handled administratively. Further, on the basis that the resulting 5-acre lot is in fact a ‘back lot ’ by defmition (See 82-2, def. of “Back Lot ”), the back lot ordinance requires access to be established via an “access outlot ” per 82 -252(c). Creation of an outlot, as opposed to merely an easement, requires that this two-lot proposal should technically be a plat subdivision, not merely a lot line rearrangement as proposed. The applicant's surveyor has apparently concluded that tlie County will accept this as a metes and bounds cembination/division, rather than requiring a plat or Registered Land Survey (RLS), which would result in legal descriptions temg Lot or Tract numbers rather than long, cumbersome nietes-and-bounds descriptions as proposed. If the County requires this be an RLS. the easement will likely end up as a separate Tract. Ii