Laserfiche WebLink
Case File: V08-01 <br />Page 2 <br />Rocky's Manor <br />Pamela Rorwick <br />General Information <br />Applicant <br />Pamela Rorwick <br />60 Day Rule <br />The application has been deemed complete as of December 20, <br />2007. The City must take action by April 20, 2008 — City <br />extended 60 day notice <br />Requested Action <br />Variance to lot frontage <br />Location and Size <br />Approximately 10 acres north of 213th and west of Jarvis street. <br />Location <br />Existing Use <br />Land Use Plan Designation <br />Current Zoning <br />Subject <br />Single family <br />Rural Residential <br />R1a <br />Property <br />home <br />North <br />Single family <br />Rural Residential <br />R1a <br />residential <br />South <br />Single family <br />Rural Residential <br />R1a <br />residential <br />East <br />Single family <br />Rural Residential <br />R1 a <br />residential <br />West <br />Single family <br />Rural Residential <br />R1a <br />residential <br />Overview/Analysis <br />The subject site has been recently rezoned to R1a allowing 2.5 acre lots with a lot frontage of 160 <br />feet per lot. (The previous zoning required 10 acres and 300 feet of frontage.) The applicant has <br />applied for an Administrative Subdivision creating two lots with a variance to lot frontage. <br />As proposed two lots will be created both having 4.81 acres. Proposed Lot 2 has an existing house <br />and shed that is planned to remain and be sold in the near future. Lot 1 will remain vacant and be <br />held for future development. Lot 1 as proposed will have a frontage of 60 feet while Lot 2 will have <br />a frontage of 433 feet. The lot size requirement is met for each lot, Lot 1 does not meet frontage <br />requirements, and is in a flag shape. If the existing house was not a factor the lots could be split in a <br />way to allow each lot to have the required 160 feet of lot frontage as currently the lot has 493 feet of <br />frontage. The existing house is somewhat positioned in the center of the current lot, making it more <br />difficult to split evenly for two lots, although not impossible. <br />According to the applicant's narrative Lot 1 should have a 60 foot driveway easement rather than 60 <br />feet of frontage and should be an outlot. The applicant indicates that Lot 1 would be an oudot in <br />order to preserve for future development. As submitted both lots are platted in a lot and block form <br />and there is not a driveway easement rather an access and frontage. The applicant should clarify this <br />at the meeting. <br />S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case riles\Variance\V 08-01 Pamela Rorwick\BOA report.doc <br />