Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1470 <br />November 14, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />The second alternative is shown on applicant's Exhibit B as <br />a PRD layout. The proposal appears somewhat contrived in order <br />to place the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, within Lot 1. <br />Applicants feel that the PRD concept is not necessarily <br />appropriate since the shared nature of the open space would tend <br />to negate the privacy aspects of the low density development. <br />Applicants further are concerned about the marketability of the <br />PRD as it applies to this specific property. Certainly <br />applicants are correct in that the property does not lend itself <br />to clustering, as was the case in the Luce Line Ridge PRD <br />development just to the west. However, with 3 lots on over 17 <br />acres, as a PRD no lot area variance is necessary since the road <br />outlot can be credited for meeting the density requirement. <br />Issues - <br />1.Does the Planning Commission feel comfortable via the <br />proposed standard plat in granting the necessary lot area <br />variances for Lots 2 and 3, to be less than 5.0 acres in the <br />5 acre zone? If so, the proposed plat would seem to address <br />the general issues outlined by the Planning Commission <br />previously. If not. Planning Commission should consider the <br />PRD alternative, in which the lot area request is no longer <br />a variance. <br />2.Is the applicants' proposal for an 18' wide gravel road to <br />the cul-de-sac, with an extended 14' gravel driveway to Lots <br />2 and 3, acceptable to the Planning Commission? If not, <br />what additional standards would Planning Commission <br />recommend? <br />If Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval for lot <br />area variances for the standard proposed three lot plat, there <br />are number of unique findings that might be made that would set <br />this application apart from other future applications requesting <br />lot area variances in the 5 acre zone: <br />1. In order to provide future access to neighboring land ­ <br />locked parcels, the City is requiring an unusually lengthy <br />outlot road that subtracts from the overall acreage. <br />2. Due to the extremely hilly topography and "stretched <br />out" nature of the parcels encompassing the property, the <br />length of roadway to serve only three parcels is necessarily <br />of an excessive length. <br />3. The overall density for the three proposed lots is 5.6 <br />acres per residence, meeting the intent of the 5 acre <br />minimum lot size standard of the RR-lA zoning district. <br />■i