Laserfiche WebLink
STAFF Memorandum <br />ROW Access to 2200 Old Highway 8 <br /> <br /> <br />To: Planning Commission <br />From: Ben Gozola, Assistant Director DCAD <br />Meeting Date: 1/21/20 <br /> <br /> <br />CURRENT STATUS <br />On December 17th, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed (as a business item due to code provisions) a <br />preliminary and final plat from Murlowski Properties Inc. intended to clean up the legal descriptions of their <br />properties to position the land for future development and/or sale. As part of any approval, staff recommended that <br />the City acquire an additional 30’ roadway easement along the northern boundary of the propsed Lot 1. At the public <br />hearing before the City Council (again due to code provisions), the applicant’s objected to this requirement. Council <br />recognized that the Planning Commission did not have the benefit of hearing the applicant’s objections in making <br />their recommendation, so the item was tabled and is being forwarded back to the Commission for additional <br />consideration. <br />ISSUE <br />As part of any platting process, the City must ensure a proposed plat meets City Code requirements, and that all City <br />interests are protected and/or maintained as part of the development. With regards to this plat, two issues arise <br />relating to right-of-way and roadway access: <br />1) Code Requirement. The City’s Subdivision code [Section 26-12(1)] requires that “all lots shall abut by their full <br />frontage on a publicaly dedicated street.” Lot 1, in its current configuration, has a 30’ roadway easement across <br />its northern boundary. <br /> The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council find that the existing 30’ <br />roadway easement is sufficient to meet this provision of code. <br /> Staff is recommending that the existing 30’ easement is not a sufficient width to accommodate the design <br />needs of a public road to serve this area, and therefore the City should not accept the current easement as <br />meeting this requirement. Expanding the easement to 60’ could accommodate future construction of a <br />publicaly dedicated street, and therefore would be acceptable. <br /> <br />