Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File 11460 September 13, 1989 Page 3 of 4 In early 1982, the City was asked to consider a four -unit PRD of the pennisula area. The City advised the applicant that they would have to deny the four -unit PRD because c. *;o excessive variances sought to hardcover with the application. :n light of the obvious action of the Council, the applicb:,s submitted a revised three -lot plat of the pennisula and wab granted approval in September, 1982. The resolution that granted preliminary approval of that three -lot plat has been enclosed for your review. During that review the City approved extension of municipal sewer lines to the undeveloped property (never assessed for sewer) finding adequate cap,,city for the three additional units. Another issue in that earlier review was the fact that Baldur Park Road did not extend to the east property line of Lot 21. Upon preliminary approval, the applicant was asked to deal individually with each of the these property owners seeking quit claim deeds of a road right-of-way to be extended or connection to a future cul-de-sac within the subject property. The three affected property owners refused to deed the right-of-way as they were opposed to the proposed development of the pennisula area. If the City is to consider further development of this property, the three property owners must once again be contacted for final determination before formal condemnation of the roadway can commence. The City has received no information as to the elevations or floor tolans of the proposed units at this stage of the sketch plan review. There have been no changes in the lakenhore regulations since that first review in 1982 that denied a four -unit PRD. There is nothing in our current review policy or ordinances that would suggest the City would turn around now and approve a 20 unit PRD as proposed on this severely limited site. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant to determine a more feasible and realistic application for formal filing. Applicant may wish to proceed with the three lot proposal originally approved by the City in 1902, but it is questionable as to the current position of the owner of Lots 30 and 31 and if that current owner would choose to join in that three -lot proposal. Please note the existirq house at the point of the E,ennisula is still not served by municipa; sewer. The current owner hate had no success in dealing with the owners of the remaining eastern lots in achievir.q an easement to bring sewer to the property. It may to necessary for the City to condemn both access and sewer Easements for the property. It would be beneficial for all if the current owner of the remaining parcels could work with the property owner to resolve the extension of municipal sewer and legal access to the {•roperty.