Laserfiche WebLink
PLANHING COMmSSIOS ting SCJVEMBBR 20,470-PARTEH COmiBOED^^ ^he acreage5T%ut\of\\nt .\“rt "e^ay around to the ea.t lot Una..nserved that such a configuration would cr.at, two,a that he would favor th.2-lctsuhdivision.^^^^^advised that the flag ut?ot*the extends opbusth suggested putting atie east side. *..,01-g. from the public regarding this matteroved by Chairman J-es°”^l?s^s ^0^^ A '^ineL run on the eastern a width of 25*. , It <br />d'"by''the^a®pp^°icant’^8 ®'^F^®/°/j.iveia^!^* Kelley said <br />:iS:sS;= <br />Kelley withdrew his motion. <br />■ -«.w,or "allows, seconded by <br />moved by Planning Commissioner - pending <br />IlsSonIr Hanson, to issue of easement vs.if a plan addressing J^sue o rather <br />e drainage and auMi7i?S°".”li\*'rifioation of what <br />Mr Parten aske^ Gaffron explained <br />^SRMXT <br />r?;hI?cUfon';l:d certificate of hailing were <br />was present for this mati <br />inistrator Mabusth lo“’'r%‘aira" a wall, <br />n oondiri''”*!. use the applicetiv" <br />■“t'^lsaV’^alofptrh'ie and recommended that the <br />J Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 2 of 3The second alternative is shown on applicant's Exhibit B as a PRD layout. The proposal appears somewhat contrived in order to placa the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, within Lot 1. Applicants feel that the PRD concept is not necessarily appropriate since the shared nature of the open space would tend to negate the privacy aspects cf the low density development. Applicants further are concerned about the marketability of the PRD as it applies to this specific property. Certainly ipplicants are correct in that the property does not lend itself to clustering, as was the case in the Luce Line Ridge PRD development just to the west. However, with 3 lots on over 17 acres, as a PRD no lot area variance is necessary since the road outlot can be credited for meeting the density requirement.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 tc Lots <br />2 ana 3, acceptable to the Planning Commission? If not, <br />what additional standards would Planning Commission <br />recommend? <br />If Planning Commission wishes to „*ecommend approval for lot <br />area variances for the standard proposed three lot plat, there <br />are number of l ’ .que findings that might be made that wou ‘■ > set <br />this applicac; part from other future applications requesting <br />lot area varian 7 in the 5 acre zone: <br />1. In order to provide future acces.*? 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 t*->ography and "stretched <br />out" nature of the parcels encomp. sing 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-IA zoning district. <br />it