Laserfiche WebLink
Ms.Elizabeth Van Zomeren <br /> April 2, 1999 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 2. Provide 30'access Outlot for back lot instead of"flag lot" design. <br /> We alsooppose the 30'Outlot suggested by the Planning Commission for reasons similar to <br /> those noted in our opposition to the Northerly Outlot. <br /> We oppose the creation of this Outlot because it removes critical acreage that could be <br /> credited to a subsequent division of Lot 1 to the North. The loss of area that results from the creation <br /> of this Outlot would be 10,680 square feet,or approximately one-quarter acre. Notwithstanding the <br /> size of the lot,in the event of a further subdivision we run up against the three-acre minimum and <br /> site limitations previously mentioned. Thus,we need every square foot we can muster to satisfy the <br /> required acreage minimums. <br /> Another reason we oppose the creation of this Outlot is that there does not appear to be good <br /> reason to require it. Our understanding from conversations with City Staff is that historically this <br /> type of flag lot was opposed only when lakeshore was involved. However,that is not the case here. . <br /> Further,with the potential for access to Lot 1 at its Northwest corner by way of an easement <br /> over Crystal Creek Road,there was even some question in Staffs mind,as expressed at the Planning <br /> Commission hearing, as to whether an Outlot should be recommended in this situation. <br /> Therefore, because the historic reason for opposing a flag lot is not present here,because <br /> there does not appear to be clear direction from Staff requiring the establishment of an Outlot,and <br /> because creation of an Outlot adversely affects subsequent acreage computations with respect to a <br /> possible subdivision of the rear lot,the creation of this meaningless Outlot at the front is opposed. <br /> 3. City Staff to grant administrative variances for septic location. if appropriate. <br /> This requirement of the Planning Commission is not opposed. The requirement is <br /> advantageous to us, and is accepted. We will work with Staff to address this matter. <br /> Thank you for this additional opportunity to address these matters. <br /> Sincerely. <br /> L� <br /> Jim and Debra Renckens <br /> JRR/ldd <br />