Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Council Action continued <br />page 3 of 5 <br />October 6, 1994 <br />Zoning File #1967 <br />Staffs recommended solution was to create a private road outlot (Outlot B) in the potential road <br />location through Lot 1. This also left a small parcel (Outlot A) adjacent to the Geffrc property, <br />which would be combined with Geffre’s residence parcel if Outlot B was indeed used as a road <br />right-of-way in the future. <br />Olson ’s remaining 14 acres is designated as Outlot C with the understanding that it inay not^ <br />developed for even one single family residence without future City approval. This delays the <br />payment of park fees for the 14 acres until it is further developed. <br />Staff further recommended that the Geffre property be included in the plat (see Exhibit B) and <br />a triangular outlot matching a pre-existing access easeineni be platted to provide » complete <br />outlot connection from Bayside Road to Outlot C. Applicate proposed <br />this recommendation by omitting Geffre from the subdivision, and proposes the City s <br />acceptance of a development agreement between Olson, K-P Properties, and Geffre (see <br />Exhibit C). <br />Geffre Property - Easement vs. Outlot <br />The aereemem (Exhibit C) indicates that if Outlot C is replatted to buildable lots and Outlot B <br />fo™ rold. then Geffre will receive Outlot A in exchange for becommg a part of tha <br />future plat and creating a triangular outlot to complete the road connection through the sou <br />comer of Geffre’s property. <br />Conversely, if the White property is acquired and a hiture road access to <br />not using Outlot B. then Geffres involvement would be unnecesary airf ^ ® <br />would revert back to the Olson property and be combined as pan »f Lm ‘ ex^° to <br />neeative impact if this occurred would be that the Olson residence would likely expect to <br />coLnue accessing directly to Bayside Road rather than being <br />roadway. That would be an issue for discussion and a potential variance if the full multiple lot <br />plat was before you now (see 9/15/94 memo Exhibit FV <br />One additional quirk: The agreement discusses replaiting Outlot C into <br />could be construed as not anticipating Outlot C being replatted as " ^ s^f <br />case of replatting Outlot C into a single buildable lot or requesting Cipt approval for s^. sw <br />michrareue tlut the addition of (^tlot A and subtraction of a triangular road <br />Geffre-s property yield in effect a three lot plat which should be served by a <br />which the oLn residence, the Geffre residence, and the new lot mwt accew. ^ <br />7c!^ld be considered as merely a lot line rearrarigemem betw^Grf^ *Sis to™i™ <br />creation of a private driveway outlot to serve the large parcel to the rear. This rp <br />would be left to Council.