Agenda - 09-05-2000-9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 On July 20, 2000 the applicant submitted. a Concept Plan for a minor subdivision. The proposal showed a 7.359 (6.88 exclusive of right-of-way) acre tract being subdivided into four (4) lots. Two (2) of the proposed lots were 1.5 acres, two (2) other lots were 2 acres in area. On July 20, 2000, the Concept Plan was denied because the proposal did not meet the requirements for private road justification (e.g., the lots were not twice the minimum required lot size/.92 acres=min., 1.84 acres=twice the minimum.). This requirement had been discussed at Development Review on July 13, 2000 when a sketch plan was taken as a courtesy review. The applicant's private road justification was strengthened. The applicant believed that average lot size was adequate, but without twice the required lot size. On August 3, 2000, the Concept Plan was taken back to Development Review. The Plan would not be approved with less than double the minimum lot size. This decision was based on the need for staff consistency in technical codes in the approval of minor and major subdivisions served by private roads.' On August 9; 2000, a staff site inspection was performed. This inspection revealed that the exisitng private road does not meet current Class B Private Road Standards. The current proposal is not being required to meet any new private road standards. The proposal will need to meet current private road standards. Attachments regarding private road standards are included for the Board's information. On August 10, 2000, the Concept Plan was again denied because the proposal did not meet private road justification, and the applicant was infom~ed that if he could meet the private road justification, then he still needed to upgrade Govinda Drive to a Class B private road. The applicant can achieve the 1.84 acre minimum lot size requirement if the~number of lots is reduced from four (4) to three (3), or, if the applicant wants to retain four (4) lots, then he can upgrade the private road to a public road. Development Review Process -Minor Subdivision 1. Concept Plan -Optional. 2. Development Review Committee review. 3. Final Plat approval. RECOMMENDATION(S): Administration recommends that the staff decision denying Govinda Hills, Phase 3 minor subdivision request be upheld. The following findings of fact pertain to this case: 1. Proposed lots must be twice the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which it is located to justify a private road.