03-12-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Coimnission ChairmanCor»i,sio„ M.mb.rl*’' ty Administrator BernhardaonMlch«l P. Cffron, A..t Pianntn, . Ad»i„i.t„torJanuary lo, 1990PraUmlnary SuMlvlalon'^*?' ®aysid« Road - ContinuatlJn of '"ina r" arranjMen ” to*‘brtni*tha’’io “> nerely a lotnto lot area conformant «=« Parcwoad via an outlet. Th® rama^ Providing access to Bayside ropo.ed for dlvl.ion a? t" 1* no?the outlet. Note that order to-re northerly parcel. applicant now owns th 4.25Bxhibitshibit A hibit B hibit C hibit D hibit E hibit P Lon - - AppUcfntl-Drawings Code vs. CoHprihensiJe"piI^® 2°«ing/Subdlvision p the appiicaiJtJ aU^prSpos/no°®°?*J P^^ellmlnary plat. 5U*-* ®^^®ting homestead parcel ^®**Tangement5Uts the Luce Line Thar 1 ^ ^^® ^-25 acre oarcai 5 dry buiidable acres, a^^Suf nai^^ ^® i"cre.Ld to ■®|® the 20 ’ wide portion thJ ®PP’"®’‘i"’«tely 600’ Additionally, applicant -a proposed driveway 0^«e“p‘a“^"’ "^"?^V,"’.o'■utr.'a.rVo'rn^? ..A«"2n*.e"7n ?!%:?, «e"“«=b«ae* "<J does not detract from the°b?ird?b''/l??y‘?; Zoning Pile #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 2 of 6Regarding lot width, the Civ/ 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 ICO' north to abut the widening of proposed Lot 2.Aecass Issues -Three issues present themselves regarding access for this proposal:I. What should be the width of Outlot A7 (Please review alsoExhibit P.)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, tnis 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/Nassopust 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, tha 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 SO* wide outlot from the Parten 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.