Laserfiche WebLink
• otv <br />Ci« r.,tt*°«' <br />^otv istta tot \ <br />cfcs <br />0®'°'’ »1 ss-'^r • <br />4300 ® ^ic <br />.wet've <br /><e. to ®*^ttW®-cte* leiot^. rt tee*® <br />Xon <br />tie'* <br />.adt <br />^ f <br />- ns-i?-^S-" “■■' <br />V«ii-^® <br />0 bV ®.a ?lO?*’' <br />tjet’owt^’ <br />^ 1. ..rea'S® «ce9^ losed ^A h f <br />«ib's r <br />Si^®® <br />waV <br />?• <br />S^® vv AOSte^^tt '""cest'i-'tion4. <br />5. <br />6 • sta£* 'A cod® <br />5uTd ai^i-® <br />ioa <br />Sta*" coo <br />^ SO' <br />pe <br />X <br />tt.i***ooeed**^* °\a* i"** * ‘’■ ° * <br />YvooS* <br />^to9®® ^opO®®°a 3 - Vtce <br />^’"°tJ)Sed b°X.aT ® <br />r/"® <br />tVvi® <br />^OotXo^ <br />t®®_.lwaV <br />, aoe®^oadA <br />eo t At e 1 <br />iot­ <br />as® <br />*’■ <br />iis®*\ woo-^ to <br />^^®^ tot ” oOt- ., <br />e ot <br />V at-® ease®'®®-!! * i matV <br />tiot-^® setof® Sot>d*^ c^t\®rn e <br />oti *'sites <br />PtOpo®St'i-® vuati®® Vts^®^tlte«®®co>®^^9'’qotd <br />load. "^Siili-fvfe e%^®^e e^tl«?tia^®iteO_% ®it ® Iiei®f J^is <br />id at® *.«itis <br />toao^- coot^*ttie ®;ite ®;itetoe; ^at <br />^1cvi.cn Aas TYie ®_--Le ®A«iV ?f, 60 ot ® ot l^cl^^®^t-ea <br />Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 2 of 5 <br />6. <br />7. <br />Proposed Lot 2 is a "flag" lot which would have 60' of frontage on Bayside Road per the proposal. The flag portion of Lot 2 also is covered by the 60* existing road easement, which again was not excluded from the area calculation by the applicant's surveyor. Primary and alternate drainfield sites for Lot 2 would be located along the northerly lot line of Lot 2.Lot 3 abuts the Luce Line Trail and was the subject of a prior variance application which was never completed. This subdivision proposal increases the area of that parcel to 5.0 acres (including the proposed road easement). One of the issues with that prior variance request was access across the Luce Line Trail, which the applicant could not obtain. The current proposal leaves Lot 3 with no frontage <br />on a public or private outlet road, but gives it about 158' <br />of frontage on a proposed 30' private road easement. <br />Outlot A was proposed for possible sale to the abutting <br />property owner at 4360 Bayside Road. However, since septic <br />testing indicates the only alternate site available for Lot <br />1 would be within the area of Outlot A this poses a problem. <br />The proposal does not strictly meet the requirements of the <br />septic code, which requires that drainfield sites be within <br />the building lot which they serve. <br />The proposed dividing line between Lots 1 and 2 generally <br />follows a deep ravine. The proposed 30' easement road was <br />located to fit the existing topography. The property <br />contains steep slopes which significantly limit the <br />potential roadway locations. <br />A number of variances would be required in order to approve <br />the plat as proposed; <br />A) Lots 1 & 3 would require a variance for lac)c of frontage <br />on a public roadway. <br />B) Lots 1, 2 & 3 would require lot width variances. At the <br />100' setback from Bayside Road, Lot 2 is only 60' wide where <br />•j n ft I 1- n 1 /i+- M-i rM- h i‘ e norma llv r#»auired. Lo- <br />1. ^ WAll W n A w — ^ <br />300' in lot width is normally required. Lots 1 & 3 do not <br />front on a public roadway nor a private road outlot, hence <br />they each technically require a 100% variance for defined <br />lot width. <br />C) Section 11.03.24, the definition of "minimum lot area", <br />requires the exclusion of private or public access easements <br />from the calculation of lot area. With this in mind, the <br />actual defined areas of Lots 1 & 2 are each about 4.0 acres, <br />and that of Lot 3 is 4.95 acres. Each lot would require a <br />lot area variance. <br />■A:. A A' <br />r-^i....'■ : '•x;."■ <br />ri-: