Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Elizabeth Van Zotneren <br />April 2.1999 <br />Page 4 * • <br />2. Provide 30* access Outlot for back lot instead of "flag lot" design. <br />• • * ' <br />We also oppose 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. Notwith^^ding the <br />size of the lot, in the event of a further subdivision we run up against the three-acre minim^ 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 comer by way of an easement <br />over Crystal Creek Road, there was even some question in Staffs mind, as expressed at the Planning <br />Commi*ssion 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 />advantaseous 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 />Jim and Debra Renckens <br />JRR/ldd