Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 13, 2005 <br />Page 2 <br />Staff stated applicants have requested approval of a single- family residential development <br />entitled Cavegn Estates. The subject property is located adjacent to the southeast corner <br />of Lois Lane and Country Lane and is currently developed with one single - family <br />dwelling. The applicants are proposing to divide the 1.38 acre lot into two buildable lots <br />of 23,560 square feet and 36,564 square feet. The existing single - family dwelling will <br />remain on the smaller lot, and the larger lot will be used for new construction. <br />Staff reviewed their analysis and recommended approval subject to the following <br />conditions: <br />1. Both lots shall connect to city sanitary sewer and water, assessments for both lots <br />will be recorded with the final plat. <br />2. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his <br />satisfaction. <br />3. Park dedication shall be paid in accordance with City policies. <br />Chair Rafferty asked what the park dedication was. Mr. Smyser replied it was $2,075.00 <br />per lot. <br />Chair Rafferty asked if the original intent of the cul -de -sac bulb was to put in more lots. <br />Mr. Smyser responded that a cul -de -sac was put in prior to the development to the west <br />and before that occurred in the 1990's, Lois Lane did not go through. <br />Mr. Laden asked if the existing sheds would remain. Mr. Bengston replied they would <br />remain. <br />Mr. Laden asked if two accessory structure building were allowed on this type of a lot. <br />Mr. Bengston responded they could add a condition to remove one of the sheds to bring <br />this into compliance. <br />Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. <br />Tony Cavegn, 7870 Country Lane, stated the shed on parcel would stay on parcel A and <br />the sheds on the other parcel B would stay with that lot. <br />Chair Rafferty stated based on the ordinances, they were allowed one home with an <br />attached garage and one accessory building, so there might be some questions on the <br />existing two sheds. He stated it appeared both shed on parcel B would not be able to <br />stay. <br />Mr. Nelson asked if there was any grandfather clause, since it was an existing structure. <br />Chair Rafferty noted the rules change once the lot was divided. <br />Mr. Cavegn noted they would be building on the new parcel B. <br />Chair Rafferty asked if he was aware of the staff conditions and was willing to comply <br />with them. Mr. Cavegn replied he was aware of them and would comply with them. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />