Agenda - Council - 02/13/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I from 1.02 acres to 3.5 acres, which exceeds the Northfork PUD one-acre minimum lot size.:-!"~he majority of the lots are between 1.3 acres and 1.75 acres. Lots 2 and 4, Block 1 and Lots 11-1'3~?.:.~,~., Block 2 do not meet the 160 foot lot width requirement at the 40 foot building s~ttSa~ci~"line required by the PUD. Lots 2 and 4, Block 1 area about 120 and 140 feet wide,, respfictively, at the front setback line. Lots 13, Block 2 is about 150 feet wide while Lots I 1 an~t'-i'2} B't~k 2 are both about 95 feet wide at the front yard setback' In staff's opinion, there ~e:~vo opi~g~'-that can be considered to rectify this issue. One, modifications can be made to~th~:lot lines in to conform to the PUD width requirement. The same can be said forLot l'3~i,~lock 2. Lots ~'~i'?~?~.,, and 12, Block 2 could be required to be combined. The second oP~ti;dtWould"b~ io require the homes on the lots mentioned above be built where the lot ,¢ic~th'rehchas 160 feet. The lots are proposed to receive public access from the extension of.S'~i~t:'~amdrew?Lane to the west and, north that will hook up to the existing rverness Lane N~i"'.Th'e applicant is also proposing two new cul-de-sacs, Iverness Court and St. Andrews C6~,."' Both cui-d~2sacs conform to City ordinances and do not exceed 600 feet. However, the;'r/aming of the cul-,de-~sacs deviate fi.om City Street naming guidelines and will need City Council appr0¥aL ::In aCcordance with the May 9, 1989 Northfork Park Dedication Agreement, there is a park 'aeai~;rion obligation of $500 per lot to be met in this plat. The City has established a trail developln.e, nt.fee of $3~25 per dwelling unit (effective January I, 2001 ) that is 9ollected prior to the release ofthe,:fma! Pl:al?~for recording. The standard 10 foot drainage and utili~ easements (five feet on com~0h ii~rbperty lines) area provided on lot perimeters. Additional'utility and drainage easementsFwill be needed as referenced in the prelim/nary p!kt'~evlbw letter. This~evel0pment will're~;uire the issuance of a Watershed Management Organization permit. Additionally, an~ ~;,sion control plan must be submitted to the City as part of the grading'and drai~a~ plan.._,The~ading and drainage Plan is generally acceptable. Specific changes tc~c,the pl- -ar~-, m-e addre,~d }n the preliminary plat review letter. The Planning Commission reviewe~i ~ :th~'preliminary pi~t request at their January 2, 2001 meeting. During the'public hearing, citizlns';raised questions regarding the expansion of the existing man-made lakes, street naming wit,:the plat, the route of trucks during the grading Coufi'Cilmlmb~r Andersofi-~tated-that the C0~il has had discussions in the past regarding the naming of the"gtfeets andih-th-e pasthax;e h°t'deviated from the street planning map. ~:_t i'i}'~ ,Mr:Peck replied that,.the City Council has deviated from the street planning map for the roads ~; ~-7}? a~°~'nd~:the golf cours&~.:?!'he_si~ation that Councilmember Anderson ~s referring to had to do with an ~i-eA that was not around-the golf course. Councilmember Zimmenkian inquired if Inverness Lane is already built. Mr. Peck repli~d'~'es, explaining that Inverness Lane connects to Jarvis. "~i. Director of PUSlic Works Kapler stated that he has been opposed to deviation from the street grid SYstem, bur' in this situation it would be a continuation of what already exists and would not be opposed to the proposed street names. -110- City Council/January 23, 2001 Page 16 of 30