05-18-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V v~> ;r»".--'.*«^ HM VI n, ▼%., T^T ^jTw-.Trii / To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Pr<Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 13, 1987 Subject: #1144 J.W. Cragg, "735" North Ferndale Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Application - Divide vacant 7.47 acre parcel (4.28 acie dry) into 2 lots of 2.0 plus acres each. Zoning District - RR-lB, 2 acre rural residential, unsewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey - Proposed Division Survey - Staff Sketch of Alternate Recommended Configuration Composite Survey - Boyke/Cragg Properties Neighborhood Development Scheme Airphoto Pertinent Facts/Discussion - 1.This property is directly south ar.d adjacent to the Boyke property which received preliminary plat approval on April 27. 2.The Cragg subdivision application was received on April 23, at which time upon review of the Boyke and Cragg plat proposals, the staff recommendation was revised to move the cul-de-sac outlot (for future use) further west on the property. Boyke's subdivision was then preliminarily approved by Council per the outlet location shown on Exhibit F. This provides for a future cul-de-sac (private or public) in a location that is appropriate for the ultimate development of Lydiard Road. 3.Staff recommends approval of the Cragg plat be subject to dedication of the south half of that cul-de-sac outlet as shown in Exhibit E. 4 This still leaves 2.0-plus acres in each new lot. Primary and alternate septic sites have been tested and are suitable. 5.Staff recommends adoption of the setbacks as shown on Exhibit E. The 50' east lot line setback for Lot 2 is proposed in consideration of the property to the east (Ron MacLeod, 725 North Ferndale Road) which may eventually have road on 2 sides as a result of this division. While this 50' setback is not technically correct per the code definitions of front, rear, and side lot lines, the entire development of "Lydiard Road" has not occurred within contemporary subdivision guidelines. . . This 50' setback proposal is appropriate given the site considerations. 1