05-15-1989 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIITOTBS OP TBS PLAMNIMG COMNISSIOH MBBTIHG MAY 15, 1989 #1405 TBCNIAS CX>LWBLL 2640 MOSTB SBORB DRIVE PRBLIMIHARY SUBDIVISION CLASS III PUBLIC HBARING 7tl5 P.M. TO 7i50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Hr. and Mrs. Colwell were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained th^rt the Colwell property consisted of just under 20 acres, which would be subdivided into lots containing no less than 2 acres of dry, contiguous land. Lot 1 contains 8.8 dry, contiguous acres; Lot 2 contains 2 acres and Lot 3 has approximately 2.48 dry, contiguous land. On-site septic system locations have been approved, and the placement of the driveway for the property must be given extra consideration due to the location of the septic test areas for Lot 3 and the alternate septic site for Lot 2. Testing indicates that mound systems would be necessary. A new septic system to serve the existing house on Lot 2 has to be installed as a condition of the subdivision. The present system is subrtandard and has been noted to be failing. Mabusth said that the issue of access in this subdivision was unique. The City's current policy of requiring a private road at a three lot density is in conflict with certain sections of subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that a driveway would serve up to three lots. The Platting Code recommends that if a subdivision is presented showing a private road serving up to three lots, then ♦■he private road must be designated ns an outlot. The code gives no clear direction that would indicate that this specific subdivision has to be served by a private road. The applicant is proposing that Lots 2 and 3 be served by an existing driveway off of County Road 51. They are also proposing that a new curb cut be made in the corridor that abuts County Road 84 to serve Lot 1. Mabusth said that the City had many concerns regarding such a proposal mainly due to the possibility that Lot 1 could be subdivided in the future. If Lot 1 were subdivided. Lot 2 would have to achieve access from a future private road that would serve the Lot 1 subdivision. Planning Coiitmissionei Cohen asked whethei Lot 2 could be subdivided? Mabusth replied that neither 2 nor 3 could be subdivided. Mabusth added that there was a question of whether Lot 3 contained the contiguous, dry buildable area. She said because of the 30* wide access easement that intersected Lot 3 that the lot line must be realigned between Lots 3 and 1 in order to ensure that there are in fact 2 acres. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she preferred not to create a land-locked lot and suggested that the easement be be given an outlot designation.