Agenda - Council - 09/24/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE #: q REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF EChO RIDGE SECOND ADDITION CASE OF ROBERT LONGF[ELD By: Patrick Trudgeon, Principal Planner Background: Robert Longfield is requesting sketch plan approval to create a new lot from his existing 10 acre parcel located on 177th Ave. The applicant is requesting to create a new' 2.08 acre parcel and keep the existing homestead on 7.9 acres. The applicant initially applied for a variance to the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and was denied by the Board of Adjustment on July 11, 2002. The applicant appealed the denial and the City Council approved the variance to lot size at their July 23, 2002 meeting. The following items are enclosed for your information: a) Site location map b) Final Plat c) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 11, 2002 d) City Council Meeting Minutes dated July 23, 2002 e) City Staffreview letter dated September 19, 2002 f) Proposed Development Agreement g) Proposed Resolution for final plat approval Notification: The plat is a minor subdivision and is not subject to a public hearing. Observations: Mr. Longfietd currently owns a 10-acre parcel that receives access from 177t~ Ave. The minor subdivision as proposed, was not in conformance with the required minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. HOwever, the applicant has received a variance to create Lot 1, Block 1 as shown on the sketch plan. City Ordinances require that newly created and existing lots have 200 feet of frontage on a public road. Staff initially had concern that Lot 2, Block 1 (the existing homestead) would be deficient in meeting the lot width requirement. However, a~er reviewing City Ordinances, it was determined that Lot 2, Block 1 will meet the lot width requirement as defined in City Ordinances. City Ordinances also require that the arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall make provisions for the continuation of existing and future streets into adjoining areas. The proposed minor subdivision does not show the continuation of the existing 177t~ Ave. fight-of-way to the eastern border of the applicant's property. Mr. Longfield has objected to dedicating this right-of- way at this time. Staff' has had a series of meetings with the applicant and from those discussions, staff is proposing that no right-of-way be dedicated at this time. However, language will be inserted into the development agreement that will require Mr. Longfield to dedicate the fight-of- way at the time the that Lot 2 is resubdivided. Since there is no need for the City to own and -197-