Laserfiche WebLink
• ■ Vi21 (c) to allow 3 ot. <br />cant was advised <br />for this 5 acre <br />the property, <br />that a Planned <br />this property due <br />nusual boundary <br />g, applicant had <br />troposal showing <br />the subdivision. <br />:evlously» staff <br />'7. PI notes the <br />n of neighboring <br />jes of the three <br />F3 is a reduced <br />two new building <br />driveway system, <br />that would serve <br />ly serving Lot 3 <br />lile) in length* <br />layouts provided <br />t provides a 50* <br />i the applicant's <br />ternate site for <br />.8 merely through <br />ere is still an <br />Lveway corridor, <br />: 1 to make up the <br />ws Lots 2 and 3 <br />ling significant <br />de and 100* rear <br />ned. Please note <br />n, it is only for <br />, which shows a <br />lat ignores the <br />i lot would have <br />jt the lot width <br />ive frontage and <br />^'y>fALm' <br />w-wmmi ■’■mmis m <br />LmigbV:'';..'immim <br />^r':-;V ,V ■••t.Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 4 of 5However, the negative aspects outweigh the lavout The required 5 acre minimums are not met. xneiiiit sro/er-iii^:lipes out the only feasible drainfield sites for 2.alternate site for Lot 1 is still on a separate outlot <br />attached to Lot 1. Again, conceptual Sketch B looks goj <br />paper but does not accommodate the topography or phya <br />characteristics of the property. <br />Conceptual sketch C, Exhibit F7, f^^gssts a pla <br />residential development (PRD) giving each building site a 2t <br />building envelope, with the remaining subdivision acrea^ . <br />open space outlot. Outlets B a C would private <br />Outlot C could conceivably be narrower than the standa <br />private road outlot, since it would serve only two lots. <br />staff Eecc—sndwtiewt - <br />Given the information provided by applicant, staff % <br />recommend that the following issues be <br />applicant so that he can return with a revised P^°P°®*^ ®^ <br />keeping with the subdivision requirements while still relati <br />the natural characteristics of the land: <br />1. Should this be a normal plat subdivision, or shou <br />be a planned residential development? <br />2. I. th.t. any ju.tlfioation to grant ''arlanc.a to i <br />development with easement roads rather than private <br />outlets? <br />3. If a private road outlot is required, should <br />to the Reiersgord property? Further, should a Private <br />outlot be continued to the Asao and Deters P^°P®^^^*® <br />north, so that the Luce Line driveway crossing for thos <br />propeirties might ultimately not be necessary? <br />4. Will Planning Commission require that the alternate <br />for Lot 1 be within the boundaries of Lot 1, if tnia <br />plat? or, if this becomes a PRD, will <br />allow the alternate site for Lot 1 to be within the <br />space outlot? <br />5. Presuming that whether this is a <br />Planning Commission will not ^5® i <br />that' outlot roadways be excluded from lot ^ <br />remaining acreage after exclusion of or-nf* <br />15.0 acres, will Planning Commission consider grants <br />lot area variances with the subdivision? <br />, V <br />’'A-;-- <br />■T,.. <br />W* v"i:'V. i"-- <br />• 'vii- <br />•. i .■ ■ •• •: • ..•T- •. ■ 1 . . ■ V • ■ <br />•v <br />-m,V - vV;:v^ <br />^ - ’ ’i <br />mmm <br />my <br />mm. <br />Ips:"; <br />msm <br />SattiSamm <br />^■3KIP <br />iii <br />Usssi <br />i <br />'myrfpMl <br />issapai <br />m III <br />c <br />my <br />mm&i <br />- : ;"v: <br />V "i <br />^4: ir <br />■m.m■bB'M <br />■■jT.' ■•■: , . .. ■ >*■■