Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2029 <br />June 9, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - <br />B • <br />C - <br />D-1-5 <br />E-1-2 <br />F-M <br />G-M <br />H - <br />1 - <br />J - <br />K - <br />L - <br />M - <br />N • <br />O - <br />P - <br />Application <br />Property Owners* List <br />Plat Map <br />Applicant’s Addendum & Exhibits <br />Applicant’s Letter & Plan tor Access Dated 3/31/95 <br />Planning Commission Minutes 3/20 95 <br />Written Response of Fox Run Residences <br />Septic Plan <br />Resolution No. 2069 <br />Drainage Plan <br />Wetlands <br />Back Lot/Fronl Lot Ordinance <br />Access Plan Proposing Options Preferred by Applicant <br />Plan for Private Road with Cul-de-sac as Required by Ordinance <br />Driveway Outlot - Back Lot/Front Lot Division <br />Current Preliminary Plan <br />Current Proposal <br />In recent meetings, the Planning Commission has been asked to address several variations <br />on accesses for properties to be subdivided. Some such as the Cloutier and Plank involved <br />cautionary advise for fumre divisions and others seeking variances to subdivision reguIaUom <br />because of unique features and the impact on these amenities if the regulations were to be <br />satisfied. In the case of the Beau Marais ptat of 1986, the City cannot now ask for a replat so <br />that a private road can be designed to meet the ordinance requirements of a three lot plat (as <br />with Plank division). Shouldn’t that issue havs >^en addressed in 1986 before lot lines were <br />defined? The current application involves a back lot/front lot division. How shall the City deal <br />with the issue of access in the 1995 subdivision? <br />Applicant proposes use of existing easement driveway to satisfy access needs of back <br />lot/front lot division. Easement driveway will serve three units requiring variai^s to <br />subdivision regulations (Section 11.33, Subdivision 42 and Section 11.31, Subdivision 5). <br />Section 11 33, Subdivision 42 calls for a private road when an access is to serve three to six <br />residential units. Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 would require a 30 ’ wide driveway outlot with <br />back lot/front lot division. <br />Review Exhibits F-1-4, the Planning Commission was unanimous in recommending that <br />access to the newly created southern lot was preferred from Fox Run. Review Exhibits G-1 , <br />oroperty owners have submitted written statements reaffirming their refusal to allow addition^ <br />accesses onto private roadway. Review Exhibits D-1-5, applicant asks you to compare the