Laserfiche WebLink
o <br />Zoning Memo #2000 <br />March 16. 1995 <br />Paee 4 <br />a low wet area at the west side. Driveway curb cut could be created but would involve major <br />land alterations and tree removal which now provide natural screening tor surrounding <br />properties. The 20’ outloi would not meet the recjuired width ot 30 for private driveway outlot <br />for a backlot configuration subdivision. <br />In review'ing the minutes of the Planning Commission and Council in 1961, there is little <br />direction. Wc are unable to determine the true intent of the driveway outlot - - how many lots <br />wete to be served .> We must deal with the current panem of development and the directives of <br />the current code. Applicant should advise if he proposes to divide combined Parcels 3 and 4 <br />some time in the future. If this is the case, then we must address the need for a conforming <br />road outlot now with this subdivision. Based on current code standards, the applicant should <br />be advised that two riparian lots would not be approved but it may be possible with a replat to <br />create a non riparian lot. If it is not the intent ot the applicant to subdivide the remaining larger <br />parcel, then the current layout with individual accesses (accesses that already exist) serving the <br />three residential sites may be acceptable to the City. Planning Commission should be prepared <br />to make a recommendation on the issue of access <br />ls.sues for Consideration <br />1. If the applicant advises that he proposes to divide combined Lots 3 and 4 in the future, <br />w ill you require platting of a private road with this subdivision? <br />2. If there is no intention of applicant to further subdivide combine Lots 3 and 4, will you <br />allow access to Lot 1 via an existing curb cut at Casco Point Road or will you require <br />access via the 20’ driveway outlot. <br />3. Should special consideration be given for lots previously approved by City in an earlier <br />subdivision review where lots meet current minimum lot standards? <br />4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <br />Options of Action <br />To either approve or deny the current proposal; or <br />Table providimi applicant additional time to address the need for an internal road providing <br />access to Lots 1. 2, and combined Lots 3 and 4 and evennially a fourth lot in the future.