02-26-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ct:Planning Coininlsslon Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardoor.Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 10, 1990#1470 P.uth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal ~Continuation of Public Hearing.cation ■* Applicant has revised his request to merely a lot line rearrangem'?^t to bring the northerly 4.25 acre parcel into lot area conformance while providing access to Bayside Road via an outlet. The remaining 12 acre parcel is not proposed for division at this time. This will be a plat rather than a metes and bounds rearrangementT in order to create the outlet. Note that applicant now owns th 4.25 acre northerly parcel. of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Bsion - Re^•ised Preliminary Plat Drawings Applicants' Letter of Request 1/9/90 Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/89 Planning Commission Min'-ces 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, ly, the applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement en the existing homestead parcel and the 4.25 acre parcel abuts the Luce Line. That parcel will be increased to de 5 dry buildable acres^ and will have approximately 600' ontage on the 20' wide portion of the proposed driveway •t. Additionally, applicant is proposing a 40' driveway t width extending from Bayside R«^ad to the southeast corner e 10 acre parcel. Please review applicants' letter of request. Staff finds in providing a long narrow portion of Lot 2 to provide for e additional useful "trade" acreage for the Reiersgord rty in exchange for additional area to the northeast. While an exchange may or may not occur, -.he future exchange pt makes sense in view of the topography of the Reiersgord 1, and does not detract from the buildability of Lot 2. i . 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. This way, technically a variance for lot 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 also Exhibit 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 outlots (Parten on Tonkawa; Strong/Massopust on South Brown Road), most 3-plus lot developments have been required to provide a SO' 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 Parten property. It would seem to be an appropriate Cit ilicy that, where additional future development is likely to »ase to 3 or more the number of houses being served by a pri outlot/driveway, the City should require dedication of the st£. .rd 50' outlot per the standards of the subdivision code when it has the opportunity to do so. L.J-