Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2029 <br />June 9, 1995 <br />Page 3 <br />cufrent proposal and variances granted to the Stronghold plat noting the similarity in physical <br />characteristics of the property. Note in the Stronghold plat there was a 30 driveway outlot <br />platted. Note also at the entrance a 50 ’ outlot was platted up to the driveway that served the <br />existing residence. In the current proposal it is not possible to provide a continuous driveway <br />outlot because Lot 2 of the Beau Marais plat is not included in this subdivision. The access <br />standard for Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 would be met in division proposed in E.xhibit O. A <br />30 ’ outlot could be platted along the east side of propeny to the north lot line ot Lot 2. Beau <br />Marais. Based on the directives of the ordinance, only Lots 1 and 2 could be served by this <br />driveway. Lot 2, Beau Marais would continue to gain access via the existing easement drive. <br />This option would have a major impact on the property resulting in the loss of the mature pines <br />along the east side. It would also require a minor encroachment of the wetlands to allow for a <br />connection to the existing drive to serve Lot 1. <br />Review Exhibit N, the private road with cul-de-sac option. This plan would satisfy <br />subdivision regulations. All lots would achieve access from the private road. There would even <br />be a greater impact on the wetland with the installation of cul-de-sac. In 1986 a private road <br />with cul-de-sac could have been located out of the wetlands. <br />Review E.xhibit H, septic testing confirms that there is suitable and adequate area for both <br />a principal and alternate septic site for proposed Lot 2. Lot 2 will meet all area and width <br />requirements no matter what is the resolve ot the access issue. <br />Access Plan Options <br />1.Use of existing easement drive to serve three residential units require approval of <br />variances to both sections of subdivision regulations noted above. <br />If this option is approved. Planning Commission may wish to recommend upgrading of <br />the existing roadway. Applicant’s addendum notes that 4" of Class 5 gravel have been <br />t __I ___ _nrivpfl :ind .should thc DOrtion withill <br />the existing roaaway. AppiiLaiu ^ auuc:uuuiu umi -r ^------------- <br />placed over existing drive. Should the roadway be paved and should the portion within <br />proposed Lot 2, at least at the entrance, be upgraded with appropriate identification for <br />____Q.i.irMccf.*; tv* rh;ino4*f1 and a road name assigned to the <br />proposed Lot Z, at least at me cniranec. uc wuii -------------- <br />access to the three lots? Should addresses be changed and a road name assigned to the <br />driveway? Should proposed Lot 1 be required to provide a turnaround in dry buildable <br />area adjacent to residence? Should the driveway be expanded? Would you allow further <br />encroachment of the wetland? <br />2.Private road with cul-de-sac (Exhibit N). This option would require approval of <br />variances allowing for major encroachment of the designated wetland. The application <br />would have to be reviewed by the Corps of Engineers, Watershed District and DNR. <br />This plan would also result m the loss of several mature trees along the east side of <br />propeny. All three lots would achieve access via this new roadway.