Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2002

Home

I I I I I I I I I · CASE #: ~ ~ REQUEST FOR SI~ZETCH PLAN APPROVAL OF LONGFEELD M~NOR SIvH3DFVISON CASE OF ROBERT LONGFEI~LD By: Patrick Trndgeon, Principal Planner Background: Robert Lon~eld is requesting sketch plan approval to create a new Iot from his e~sting 10 acre parcel located on 177~' 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 2_3, 2002 meeting. The followingitems are enclosed for your information: a) Site location map b) Sketch plan c) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 11, d) City Council Meeting 1Vfinutes dated July 23, 2002 e) City Staff'review letter dated Au=mrst 29, 2002 2002 Notification: The plat is a minor subdivision and is not subjected to a public hearing. Observations: I I I I I Mr. Longfield currently owns a 10-acre parcel that receives access from 177th 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, after reviewing City Ordinances, it was determined that Lot 2, Block 1 will meet the lot VCidth 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 177~ AVe. right-of-way to the eastern border of the applicant's property. I I I Staff has brought the issue of providing a new fight-of-way forward to the applicant. Mr. Longfietd 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 fight-of-way be dedicated at this time. However, language will be inserted into the development agreement that will require h/ff. Longfield to dedicate the right-of-way at the time the eastern portion of Lot-2 is resubdivided. Since there is no need ~br the City to own and maintain a. right-of-way corr/dc~r