Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PLANNING RE'P' ~ T <br /> <br />DA TE: <br /> <br />7 F ebruzry 1990 <br /> <br />CASE NUMBER: <br /> <br />2J52 <br /> <br />APPLICANT: <br /> <br />T hom&s and Mary Short <br /> <br />!...DCA TlON: <br /> <br />SDuth of County P.oad B, <br />Between Lexington and <br />Victor;a (see s!<etch) <br /> <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br /> <br />LI~:sion of Platted Lot <br /> <br />PLAf\I'o8NG CONSIDERA TlONS: <br /> <br />1. BACKGROUND <br /> <br />The lot proposed to be divided is one of a series of ma:1)' lots on the <br />south side of County Road a, which extend through and have frontage <br />on Burke Avenue as well. Many of these lots to the west have been <br />divided 90 !is to c~ate two lots 'Jut of these "double frontage lats". <br /> <br />The lot in question (Lot 8 of Registered Land Survey '56) was prcpos&d <br />to be divided back in 1979, but was not apprcved by the City Gt that <br />time. The proposed iana di vision at that time was for 8 <br />lO,OOO-square-foot lot fruntiog on Gurke and a 14,4.1S-aquare-foot lot <br />fronting on CQ;Jnty Road B. Some ot the land ownen in the immediat& <br />area objected to the division in part because the Iota that were <br />previously divided (and built upon) are c1ubtered fcrther to the west. In <br />other words, the lots on either side of the property in question have <br />not beef'! divided as yet. <br /> <br />2. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY <br /> <br />The propoSCIl is to divide 8 parcel that is 291 feet (north-south <br />dimension) by 95 feet in width. After deducting 10 feet of iength for <br />dedication tor County Road B and an additional 30 feet for Burke <br />Avenue, the rem8ining Ja....c; to he divided measures 257 feet. <br /> <br />The proponl is to make the lot to U.,e south (frooting on Surke) have a <br />depth of 115.74 feel. !f this were 11'5.79 feet, the lot a~a would be <br />exactly 11,000 square feet as required by the Zonir~9 Ordina~ for an <br />interior lot of this type (not a corner lot). If the first lot is 115.79 <br />feet, the lot to the north would havp. a d2i>th of 141.21 feet. Again. <br />with a lot width of 95 teet (the minimum is 85 feet), the area of the <br />iot tc th~ nonn wOlUC ae D,<il...;;.:;. square ;eet. <br /> <br />3. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS <br /> <br />Planning COf'.$iderations <br /> <br />If the line dividing the two pro...-osed lots is moved 4:10 of a foot <br />nc:-th, esch of the lots propGsed will meel ur exceed the minimum lot <br />standards of 85 f~et of width and ~ 1,000 ~quare fp.er of area. Thus, it <br /> <br />. .... . ':" . <br />.. .... . . <br />, , " <br />. , . . <br />, ' <br />. " . <br />'. . . '." . . <br /> <br />J~ <br /> <br />, , <br />. Or .., . <br />,'t. r" <br />. ... - . -II. . <br />, . , <br />