No. 05SV045 - Eastridge Estates Subdivision

A request by Centerline for PLM Land Development, LLC to consider an application for a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations to install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street light conduit, sewer, water and to reduce easement width from 49 feet to 26 feet and to allow a lot twice as long as wide as per Chapter 16.16 of the Rapid City Municipal Code on Lots 1 through 15, Block 1 and Lot 19 Block 2, Eastridge Subdivision; Lots 1 through 15, Block 2, PLM Subdivision, Section 24, T1N, R7E, BHM, Rapid City, Pennington County, South Dakota, legally described as N1/2 NW1/4, Less Eastridge Estates Subdivision, Section 24, T1N, R7E, BHM, Rapid City, Pennington County, South Dakota, more generally described as being located adjacent to the south side of Enchanted Pines Drive and the east and west sides of Luminosity Lane.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Variance to the Subdivision Regulations to install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street light conduit, sewer, water and to reduce easement width from 49 feet to 26 feet and to allow a lot twice as long as wide as per Chapter 16.16 of the Rapid City Municipal Code be tabled as the Variance to the Subdivision Regulations is no longer needed.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommended that the Variance to the Subdivision Regulations to allow a lot twice as long as wide be approved;
That the Variance to the Subdivision Regulations to waive the requirement to install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street light conduit, sewer, water and to reduce the easement width from 49 feet to 26 feet be denied;
That the Exception to allow the access easement to serve six lots in lieu of four lots as per the Street Design Criteria Manual be approved with the following stipulations:
1.
Prior to City Council approval, the applicant shall submit documentation demonstrating maintenance of the access easement; and
2.
Prior to submittal of a Final Plat application, the plat document shall be revised to show the “common drive access easement” as an “access and utility easement”.

VOTE: (6 to 0 with Andrews, Anderson, Brown, Nash, Prairie Chicken and Schmidt voting yes and none voting no)