10-19-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1212 October 15, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit H-2 indicates another option whereby Lot 2 maintains a small portion of frontage, perhaps 30', on the outlet which would be similar to the frontage Lot 1 currently has, with a strip along the outlet being kept within the boundaries of Lot 1. The applicant feels this would be a suitable compromise that accomplishes his purpose, while maintaining some amount of frontage on the road for Lot 2, 3. Each of Lots 1 and 2, under any of the schemes shown, will maintain in excess of the 2 acre minimum lot area requirement. Both primary and alternate septic sites on Lot 2 will be preserved under any of the schemes shown. Discussion -* Applicant notes that he early-on discussed with the current owners of the lots to the south, the location of his driveway in relation to the potential driveways properties to the south served by the other half of the road and cul-de-sac outlet. Applicant notes that he has discussed the potential sharing of his driveway with the two properties immediately to the south. Neighbor Ron MacLeod (house just south of the road outlets) obviously would prefer all 3 properties to use applicant's driveway north of the tree line, which will maintain the buffer currently existing. The owners of the two vacant lots have not come to an agreement with applicant on use of his driveway. Please review the photos and diagram of the driveway layout (Exhibit I). Applicant's surveyor will be providing a survey showing the exact as- built driveway location. Staff would suggest that the layout of Exhibit H-1 would be most appropriate in accomplishing the City's standards for maintaining a 200' minimum width for Lot 2. Exhibit H-2 would in essence trade the frontage of Lot 2 for more frontage on Lot 1, creating a flag shaped Lot 2 that fronts on the road outlot, and an odd shaped Lot 1. Staff Reccxnmendation - Staff feels that increasing the size of the outlot per Exhibit H-1 in most appropriate and results in an increase in Lot I's frontage on a roadway, requiring less of a variance while maintaining the required frontage for Lot 2. The scheme of Exhibit H-2 seem potentially acceptable (if not very unusual) and does not create a new outlot parcel. Both layouts H-1 and H-2 should be feasible by metes and boundc description as long as the County Torrens Office will accept the descriptions. In Scheme H-1, the separate new outlot portion would be expected to be covered under the same covenants, etc. as Outlot A.