11-20-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Pile #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 3 of 5 D) Variance to Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (c) to allow 3 lot development without a private road outlot. DisCUSSiOB - In early discussions with staff, the applicant was advised that complete septic testing would be required for this 5 acre subdivision due to the slope concerns on the property. Additionally, it was suggested to applicant that a Planned Residential Development (PRD) be considered for this property due to its unique natural characteristics and unusual boundary configuration. As of a week before this writing, applicant had been requested by staff to provide a revised proposal showing outlot roads rather than road easements to serve the subdivision. In your discussion of the issues noted previously, staff would suggest reviewing sketches PI through P7. PI notes the neighborhood ownership pattern and the location of neighboring residences to the north. P2 notes the acreages of the three blocks of property within the subdivision. P3 is a reduced version of the applicant's concept plan for two new building Indicates the existing and proposed driveway system. Especially note the extreme length of driveway that would serve Lots 2 and 3. Prom Bayside Road, the driveway serving Lot 3 would be about 2,100 feet (or four-tenths of a mile) in length. Sketch P5 is the first of three conceptual layouts provided by staff for discussion purposes. This layout provides a 50* roAd out^lo^ to th6 Rolsrs^ord boundary# and uaas tha applicant's proposed 30* corridor for Lots 2 and 3. The alternate site for 1 is within Lot 1, although the contiguity is merely through a 10' wide neck. With this configuration, there is still an apparent need for an outlot east of the 30' driveway corridor, and this outlot would need to become part of Lot 1 to make up the required 5 acres for Lot 1. This sketch shows Lots 2 and 3 abutting the private road outlot and containing significant frontage on that outlot. The required 50' side and 100' rear setbacks for the existing house would be maintained. Please note that staff is not recommending this configuration, it is only for discussion purposes. Exhibit P6 is staff conceptual sketch B, which shows a typical "block" subdivision configuration that ignores the topography concerns for road construction. Each lot would have the required frontage on a private road and meet the lot width requirements. Also, the Asao property would have frontage and required width on the private road. ! i