Laserfiche WebLink
VL <br />Request for Council Action continued <br />page 2 of 3 <br />July 7, 1995 <br />Zoning File <5^2020 <br />B.Preliminary subdivision of three lots. All three lots meet the required area. <br />Applicant has acquired an additional tenth of an acre with a lot line rearrangement <br />to be approved by the Council at this meeting (Application #2021). Lot 3, the <br />east lot line does not meet the required 200’ width to the rear of the 50’ <br />front/street setback measured at 199.98’. Planning Commission members noted <br />at their May meeting the inability of applicant to acquire the additional frontage <br />at the northeast lot line. Members also noted that the property is sewered. An <br />existing lot of record could be built on without variances if the lot measured 160’ <br />width (80% of 200’). Lots 1 and 2 shall be served by a private road, Oxford <br />Road along the west lot line. Lot 3 would continue to use an existing driveway <br />rt Leaf Street. The existing cul-de-sac would remain until the development of <br />Lots 1 and 2. The driveway serving the guest house on Lot 2 will also remain <br />while stmcture is occupied. Staff recommends that the driveway be removed <br />when new residences are to be constructed in order to minimize the impact on <br />existing planted areas. Based on proposed location of residences, on Lots 1 and <br />2, it would be more efficient to require access from Oxford Road for new <br />construction. <br />All lo's shall be served by sewer from Oxford Road. The property has already <br />been assessed ».le sewer unit. Two additional sewer units at a cost of $24,225 <br />each shall be j.a:J prior to final plat approval. The ptivate sewer line to serve <br />Lot 3 will be located along the shared lot lines of Lx)ts 1 and 2, review your <br />preliminary plan, Exhibit J. Review Exhibit E-2, the engineer has asked for a <br />15’ wide utility easement at the north side lot line of Lot 1 to allow for future <br />sewer service to church property. The Planning Coramission was concerned with <br />the impact on the mature trees within that area and asked that the City Engineer <br />meet with developer to determine a second location that would have less impact <br />on the existing amenities. Staff has met with Jim Bruce on the site and found that <br />the utility easement could be relocated adjacent to the redesignated drainageway <br />witliin Lot 1 at the south side. The new location would have no impact on <br />mature plantings nor would it impact the building envelope of the lot. <br />5 <br />The developer has advised that the shed on Lot Ttwould be removed prior to fm^ <br />plat approval, [the existing residence on Lot 2, the former guest house, may <br />either remain to be a part of the principal residence or as an accessory structure <br />with expanded living space but with no kitchen. Structure can never function as <br />a separate residential unit because the property lacks the area requirement for a <br />non-rental guest house use. The future owner will be asked to execute a covenant <br />if the stmcture remains as a separate accessory stmcture with living are.t to alert <br />all future owners that the stmcture could never serve as an independent residential <br />unit.