02-26-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COMMISSTOK ACTIONnt to ^®*^°"“"ended aga-»naf t-hnexV 7: -at a-c«l ; ;t «=nonday, February la, i,,„."rtrt r/aVi“*f,«P^es oF tbe omT,’ ^•”-t'>e Planning Coaunlsslon'!' '"’® “®=°*aer^ after* r‘e°^?^®**°"contact ataff to •• “ ’ '> ! s To:Pros:Date:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 10, 1990Subject: #1470 iiuth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road -Preliminary subdivision - Revised Proposal - Continuation of Public HearingApplication - Applicant has revised his request to merely a lot line rearrangemr-it to bring the northerly 4.25 acre parcel into lot area conformance while providing access to Bayside Road via an outlot. The remaining 12 acre parcel is not proposed for division at this time. This will be a plat rather than a metes and bounds rearrangement in order to create the outlot. Note that applicant now owns th 4.25 acre northerly parcel.List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Discussion - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawings Applicants' Letter of Request 1/9/90 Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/89 Planning Commission Minx i;es 11/20/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/14/89 Memo Re: Conflicts/Standards of Zoning/Subdivision Code vs. Comprehensive Plan Please review the attached proposed preliminary plat. Briefly, the applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement between the existing homestead parcel and the 4.25 acre parcel which abuts the Luce Line. That parcel will be increased to include 5 dry buiJdable acres and will have approximately 600' of frontage on the 20' wide portion of the proposed driveway outlot. Additionally, applicant is proposing a 40' driveway outlot width extending from Bayside Rv-ad to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel. Please review applicants' letter of request. Staff finds merit in providing a long narrow portion of Lot 2 to provide for future additional useful "trade" acreage for the Reiersgord property in exchange for additional area to the northeast, while such an exchange may or may not occur, *.he future exchange concept makes sense in view of the topograpny of the Reiersgord parcel, and does not detract from the buildaoility of Lot 2. ■j