pf_01813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PLANNING REPORT DATE: 2 December 1987 CASE NUMBER: 1813 APPLICANT: John Steven Seitz LOCATION: Southwesterly of Woodlynn { Avenue Cul-De-Sac (see sketch) ACTION REQUESTED• Approval of Lot Division PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This property consists of 7.3 acres and is contiguous to Ladyslipper Park consisting of approximately 12 acres to the south and west. This property has been delineated on the 1979 and the 1969 Comprehensive Plan as a potential addition to the park. 2. This past summer the owner made a concerted effort to sell the property, at which time Mr. Seitz prepared an offer to buy it. After discussing it with the staff, we informed him that the City's Comprehensive Plan indicated a desire on the City's part to add this to the existing park area. The question was then submitted to the City Council who decided not to purchase the land for park purposes. The requested price was $75,000. 3. Subsequent to that decision, Mr. Seitz has prepared various plans for the private use of the property. As the land now exists, a building permit could be issued for the property for one single-family home without Planning C:im-mission or Council action. Other options would include the development of a PUD which, based on the acreage of 7.3 acres, would theoretically allow 29 dwelling units at 11,000 square feet per unit. Obviously, however, there is not adequate buildable land on the site to accommodate that many units except perhaps in an apartment type structure. Theoretically, that is possible, though not likely desirable. 4. You will note that Mr. Seitz's proposal is to simply place two single-family homes on the site. Parcel A (to the south) would have 4.1 acres of land with approximately 1.2 acres of high ground. Parcel B consists of 3.2 acres with approximately 1 acre of high ground. This acre of ground is exclusive of the 25 foot corridor providing access to Lot A. 5. Other development schemes had tt, c to eight units on the site and had been reviewed by the applicant with the staff. A mutual opinion evolved suggesting the simple approach without a PUD and not involving an association of land owners.