Laserfiche WebLink
:•>; *.•. • .« ;. -*v ■"■■' : ;■ ■ ■ <br />rould have 60' of <br />The flag portion <br />Lng road eaaementf <br />ea calculation by <br />bernate drainfield <br />the northerly lot <br />the subject of a <br />■ completed. This <br />of that parcel to <br />isement). One of <br />quest was access <br />ilicant could not <br />with no frontage <br />.ves it about 158' <br />easement. <br />» to the abutting <br />jver, since septic <br />available for Lot <br />s poses a problem, <br />equirements of the <br />Ld sites be within <br />s 1 and 2 generally <br />' easement road was <br />>hy. The property <br />.cantly limit the <br />in order to approve <br />for lack of frontage <br />«rariances. At the <br />ily 60' wide where <br />Lots 1 s 3 do not <br />oad outlotr hence <br />iance for defined <br />inimum lot area"» <br />: access easements <br />this in mindr the <br />h about 4.0 acresf <br />t would require a <br />t*:',..... .Zoning Pile #1470 October 10» 1989 Page 3 of 5D) Variance to Section 11.10» Subdivision 21 (c) to allow 3 lot develoiment without a private road outlot.Discaasi<ai ■* <br />In early discussions with staff, the applicant was advised <br />that complete septic testing would be required for this 5 acre <br />subdivision due to the slope concerns on the property. <br />Additionally# it was suggested to applicant that a Planned <br />Residential Development (PRD) be considered for this property due <br />to its unique natural characteristics and unusual boundary <br />configuration. As of a week before this writing, applicant had <br />been requested by staff to provide a revised proposal showing <br />outlot roads rather than road easments to serve the subdivision. <br />In your discussion of the issues noted previously# staff <br />would suggest reviewing sketches Fl through P7. Pi notes the <br />neighborhood ownership pattern and the location of neighboring <br />residences to the north. P2 notes the acreages of the three <br />^ 1 ^ ^ ^ Jmblocks of property within the subdivision. P3 is a reduced <br />version of the applicant's concept plan for two new building <br />sites. P4 indicates the existing and proposed driveway system. <br />Especially note the extreme length of driveway that would serve <br />Lots 2 and 3. Prom Bayside Road, the driveway serving Lot 3 <br />would be about 2#100 feet (or four-tenths of a mile) in length. <br />Sketch P5 is the first of three conceptual layouts provided <br />by staff for discussion purposes. This layout provides a 50' <br />road outlot to the Reiersgord boundary, and uses the applicant s <br />proposed 30' corridor for Lots 2 and 3. The alternate site for <br />Lot 1 is within Lot 1# although the contiguity is merely through <br />a 10' wide neck. With this configuration, there is still an <br />apparent need for an outlot east of the 30' driveway corridor, <br />and this outlot would need to become part of Lot 1 to make up ^be <br />required 5 acres for Lot 1. This sketch shows Lots 2 and 3 <br />abutting the private road outlot and containing significant <br />frontage on that outlot. The required 50' side and 100' rear <br />setbacks for the existing house would be maintained. Please note <br />that staff is not recommending this configuration, it is onJy for <br />discussion purposes. <br />Exhibit P6 is staff conceptual sketch B, which shows a <br />typical "block" subdivision con:!iguration that ignores the <br />topography concerns for road construction. Each lot would bave <br />the required frontage on a private road and meet the lot width <br />requirements. Also# the Asao property would have frontage and <br />required width on the private road. <br />. (=- <br />S f'- <br />xA -X <br />-V.. ^ <br />.. ••• •• ; 5*.. !• <br />mm <br />m .j- ..ji . i: ...... . : v ..m <br />M