10-17-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request I'ot Council Action continued page 3 of 5 October 6, Zoning File #1967________________ Staffs recommended Si'lution was to create a private road cnithM (Outh'-t B) in the p^>tential ri\id IcKation through IxH I. This also left a small parcel (Outk^ A) adjacent to the Gcffre propeny. which wtiuld be combined with Get Ire's residence parcel if Outlot H was indeed used as a road right of way in ifte fumre. Olstm’s remaining 14 acres is designated as Outlot C with the understanding that it may mst be developed for even one single family resideiKC without future City approval. This delays the payment of park fees for the 14 acres until it is further deseloped. Staff funher recommended that the Geffrc property be included in the plat (see lixhibit B) and a triangular outkit matching a pre-existing access easement be platted to provide a complete outlot connection from Bayside Road to Outlot (' Applicants proptised plat diverges from this rccoiiinicndation by omitting Geffre from the sulidivision, and proposes the City s acceptance of a development agrtTinent between Olson, K*P Properties, and Gcffre (see Exhibit C). Geffre Property - Easement vs. Outlot Tlic aereement (Exhibit C) indicates that if Outlot C is replaitcd to buildable lots and Outlot B is used for a road, then Geffrc will receise Outlot A in exchange for becoming a part of iluu future plat and creating a triangular outU>t to complete the road connection through the southeast corner of Getfre's property. Conversely, if the White pri>perty is acquired and a future road access to Bayside is developed not using Outlot B. then Geffres involvement would be unnecessary and both O tiot A and B would revert back to the Olson property and be combined as part ot Lot 1. Perhaps the only negative impact if this occurred wimld be that the Olson residence would likely expect to continue accessing directly to Bayside Road rather than being served by a future interior roadway. That would be an issue for discussion and a potential variance it the full multiple-lot plat was before you m'w (see 9/15/94 memo Exhibit F). One additional quirk: The agreement discusses replaiting Outlot C into "buildable parcels and could be construed as not anticipating Outlot C being replailed as a single buildable lot. In the ca.se of replatting Outlot C into a single buildable lot or requesting City approval tor same, stall miuht argue that the addition of Outlet A and subtraction of a triangular load outlet trom Getfre’s property yield m effect a tliice lot plat which should be sc ved by a pro ate road tmto which the Olson residence, the Geffre residence, and the new. lot must access. Akematisc y. it could be considered as merely a lot line rearrangemen betw een Get Ire and Olson, and the creation of a private driveway outlot to serve the large parcel 'o the rear. Tliis inieqirelation would be left lo Council.