02-12-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Coiranisslon chalrmy Kelley Orono Planning Cotranisslon Members City Administrator BernhardsonPiannina & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning *<January 10, 1990,1470 Ruth 4 ?«potal"-“'’ ‘ion - Applicant >-« 4’:25”fc*re''p««^. rearrangement to v\din^^ Bayside, lot area conformance _ 12 acre parcel is noti via an outlot. The be a plat,osed for division f"^^reVrrangemeTt'in order to III JSroStl”?* «Ste that applicant now owns th 4.25 i northerly parcel. Exhibits ibit A - Revised Preliminary Plat drawings ibit B - APP^^?®"^®'^isgfon°Action^Notice 11/22/89 i^bft S : lllZTnl cSirslon Minutes 11/20/89 P : H^o pefconincfs/StLaards of tonlng/Subdlvislon Code vs. Comprehensive P-an .on - Base review the line rearrangement the applicants are propo 9 *-vio 4 25 acre parcel "the existing p'^^rceT will be increased to buts the Luce Line. and^will have approximately 600'5 cry buildable acres, and will nave atp driveway .tage on the 20' wide portion of the^propo Additionally, 5 to the Southeast cornerwidth extending from Bayside Road to tne s 10 acre parcel. .ease review applicants' ° q/® ot^ provide for n providing a i°y9 narrow portion ^ the Reiersgord additional J^^ea to the northeast. While ? ixc®ha‘?|rLy°''or may not ‘ .”n‘d^ VoeV nrt ^d"e//art Of hot 2. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 2 of 6Regarding lot width, the City has taken a recent direction to require that the narrow access portion of flag lots should be an outlot, so that the "front lot line" will be defined at the widened portion of the property rather than within the narrow corridor. Thi.s way, technically a variance for Ipt width is avoided. Based on this concept, considering a possible future trade. Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the 20' outlot portion be extended 100' north to abut the widening of proposed Lot 2.Access Issues -Three issues present themselves regarding access for this proposal:I. What should be the width of Outlot A? (Please review alsoExhibit F.) Since we know that Reiersgord has a 60' easement over the 40' wide part of Outlot A, we know he is likely to use it for access if his lot ever is granted variances to build. Therefore, this portion of Outlot A will likely ultimately serve at least 3 residences, perhaps a 4th if Lot 1 is further divided. At a level of 4 houses, both Comprehensive Plan and subdivision code standards define the traveled access as a private road rather than a private driveway. Although in the past the City has allowed a few 3 lot developments to use 30' private road outlets (Parten on Tonkawa; Strong/Massopust on South Brown Road), most 3-plus lot developments have been required to provide a 50' outlot, per the subdivision code standard. Because Outlot .a abuts the White property to the southeast, there is a potential that the White property would in the future be developed with access via Outlot A. While one could argue that such a development would merely require White to grant an additional 10' to the proposed 40' for Outlot A, the subdivision code Section 11.40, Subdivision 1 states that "street systems in new subdivisions shall be layed out so as to eliminate or avoid new perimeter half streets". This suggests that now is the appropriate time to obtain a total 50' wide outlot from the Parter. property. It would seem to be an appropriate City policy that, where additional future development is likely to increase to 3 or more the number of houses being served by a private outlot/driveway, the City should require dedication of the standard 50' outlot per the standards of the subdivision code when it has the opportunity to do so. V ivv-ry^-.'..