10-19-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1771 October 14# 1992 Page 2 List of Exhibits -* A - Application B - Applicants' Addendum C - Property Owners List - Plat Map - Council Minutes 7/26/76 - North Arm Estates, Second Addition - Planning Commission Minutes 2/20/90 - Council Minutes 3/12/90 - Amended Septic Map Lot 1 - Conceptual Transportation Plan - Map of Ownership, Right-of-Way, Access - Preliminary Plat - Weckman Memo D E P G H I J K L M Review of Forner Subdivision Application (#1490) The original lot line rearrangement was presented in 1990. Review Exhibits G and H. The Planning Commission denied the application based on the magnitude or intensity of the lot width variance required. There was also the issue of right-of-way for North Arm Lane shown at a 33* width. Members may remember the unique history of this property. The 33' right-of-way of North Arm Lane was created by the original owner when all surrounding properties were one property. In fact, although the City maintains the roadway as a public road and has for many years, the 33' parcel is owned by the property owners to the north, refer to Exhibit K. In an earlier subdivision to the south, the City acquired 17' of right-of-way. The City had asked for 17* of right-of-way from the owners of the subject property but due to the impact on the septic, applicants sought for special consideration and asked that only 8 1/2' be acquired at this time. The remainder could be taken from the property to the west side of the platted right-of-way at the time of a future subdivision. The Council conceptually approved the lot line rearrangement and requested that applicants provide additional septic information to confirm that 8 1/2' of additional right-of-way would not impact the drainfield sites. The applicants did not proceed with the subdivision as the current owners, Mr. and Mrs. Markoe purchased both lots. The Ma; .oes have filed the current application because they will be leaving the state. Members may also remember Lot 1 as it exists today was incapable of supportinc anything but the 2-bedroom mound system in the present confirguration. This resulted from an earlier conditional use permit whereby five of the property owners adjacent to the channel area requested dredging and filling permits. Both Lots 1 and 2 received the majority of the spoils from that dredging project. Unfortunately, Lot 1 received the most impact because the steeper elevations along the west side restricted development of mound systems. ii *