Laserfiche WebLink
#595 - Judd Ringer <br />•February 25, 1981 <br />Page 2 <br />3. If it doesn't conform to 34.823 or 34.900, should an ordinance <br />amendment be considered to: <br />a) make these facilities a RR-IB CUP? <br />b) include it in RR-lB-1 as a permitted or conditional use? <br />c) create a new zone? <br />Making one of the above determinations would not in itself be a commitment <br />to approve this proposal under such an application. <br />SUBDIVISION <br />Until, and unless, all or part of this property is rezoned, any subdivision <br />proposal must be reviewed as if it were a normal RR-lB two-acre residential <br />division. This includes foresight to consider the effects of creating <br />each parcel, including the real possibility that plans may chemge and <br />that Icurge lots are prone to redivision down to the two acre density. <br />Options should be kept loose and open to accommodate this eventuality. <br />The property apparently consists of four separate parcels containing <br />three residences, plus out-buildings. A question has been raised as to <br />whether or not the north peircel and residence is included. This must <br />be clarified. <br />The proposal indicates combination and redivision such that two residences <br />would be on the seune (Parkview) parcel and one residence on the remainder. <br />Multiple residences on one parcel are not permitted without a guest house <br />conditional use permit. Final subdivision review would have to be subject <br />to prior removal of the one old house, issuance of a guest house permit, <br />or some other zoning cunendment/approval for this specific proposal. <br />Lot arrangement and access is my major concern with this proposal. As <br />drawn, the Parkview parcel is landlocked. This is not acceptable without <br />a platted public street or standard private road outlot providing access <br />to this parcel and to all future parcels. <br />This proposal indicates abandonment of the existing driveway, which is <br />good, but Ringer's January 8, 1981 letter indicates that it will be <br />"retained for possible future use". This issue must be decided upon <br />at the time of this subdivision. <br />When this property was reviewed by staff two years ago, it was felt that <br />direct access to Highway 12 should be very limited or restricted altogether. <br />The>concern is creation of strip development along the highway with <br />multiple accesses required. Too many future options along Highway 12 are <br />limited by the current design, almost forcing direct access if the southern <br />strip is redivided—and it most certainly will be. <br />J