10-02-1986 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1086 October 16, 1986 Page 2 of 2 Discussion: This is a request to divide off a new building site from the 4.9 dry acres with existing residence. Staff recommended that it be submitted as a sketch plan because the new lot would be divided approximately in half by a private easement road that serves the existing house and 5 other properties (3 houses, 2 buildable lots). The new lot would not have 2 contiguous dry acres in either the north or south parcel, as is required in Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (B). It appears that a house could be located to meet the 50* front, 30* side, and 26* wetland setbacks. Exhibits D indicate the easements we have documented on file as being granted between property owners in the neighborhood. If all of these are still in effect, they somewhat reduce the calculated dry creditable areas on the property. Perhaps applicant can enlighten us as to which easements are current. Staff has found 3 precedent cases where variances have been granted to allow credit of area on both sides of a private road easement: Orono Oaks Lot 13 - 1978 1.4 ac/0.6 ac Greentrees Lot 2 - 1980 0.8 ac/1.2 ac Balsawood Lot 2 - 1984 1.16 ac/1.67 ac A Final Issue - since the private easement road serves a total of 6 lots (7 if this application is approved) should we create a 50* road out lot? Note that the City lias been granted a road easement by quit-claim deed over a portion of undeveloped potential cul-de-sac at the southwest corner of the east portion of Tract A (see plat map. Exhibit C), and as an outlet a further portion for cul-de-sac from Tract C. We have allowed some past subdivisions in similar easement road areas without requiring dedication of outlets as right-of-way, we have in some cases required that outlets be dedicated. From a planning and fire safety standpoint, staff feels it would be prudent to have this easement road as an outlet. If it is an outlet, how would you treat the contiguous lot area variances? Reconnnendation: Applicant wishes direction from Planning Commission as to whether he has a feasible plat and whether you would recommend granting the necessary variances for contiguous lot area. Of course, because this is a private road, we would also be granting a variance for no frontage on a public street. Staff would also request your direction as to where the "front lot line setback" should be measured from - the lot line (which lot line is front?) or the road easement line (if this road becomes a private road outlot, the setbacks are more clearly defined).