10-18-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Don Kempf March 18. 1993 Page 2 3. 4. 5. March 26, and the ability of the sur\eyor to complete his final plat procedures with the County Surveyor’s Office between the Nlay 10 and May 24 Council meetings. Perhaps a more realistic scenario would be an application made by the April 23 deadline with Plannin g Commission action on May 17, Council preliminary approval on June 14 and fmal Council approval by mid-July. The Whites have never submitted the necessary survey and mylar work for final plat approval. Their surveyor would have to provide this in order for them to complete the process. If you take over as developer, you would likewise have to provide the final plat drawings and mylars, presumably done by the same surveyor the Whites used. !t is likely that if you have to use a different surveyor, your costs will be much higher, since the Whites’ surveyor has all of this on file. The six-lot subdivision you have sketched out would not be approved by the City because it does not provide_access to all lots via an interior road system which you would have to develop^ to respond to your specific question, this would substantially complicate the subdivision, probably adding a minimal amount of time but a great amount of expense to your costs, i.e.: Private road review/inspection fee OR $600.00 + $.50/lineal foot Public road review & inspection fee On-site system site evaluation review fees Preliminary subdivision review fee (Class III) Final plat review fee (Class III) Final "legal review and filing" fee Park dedication fee (see attached Code Section 11.62) $900.00 -1- $.50/ lineal foot $ 50.00/new lot $325.00 + $25.00/'ot $175.00 + any special legal/ engineering charges $200.00 8% of Fair Market Value of Land Resolution No. 2508 states that the outlot cannot be built on until it is further subdivided. Therefore, in order to construct a residence on the outlot would require a revision to the previous preliminary plat approval. The reason for that clause was that the one-lot subdivision to split property off from die existing house was considered as a precursor to development of the remaining land, and the existing house, driveway and wetland are situated such that it is unlikely that house w'ould be served by an interior road system. It was the clear intent of the Planning Commission and consistent with City policy that all future development be served by an interior road system. Therefore, me