Laserfiche WebLink
14701989,nd alternative la ahown. The propoeal for Lot It withinalter nate drainfield site for ^ necessarilyfeel th’t the PRO nnen soace would tendjince ti e shared iJw density development.>e privacy aspects ^.^e marketability of theurther are concerned -ou^rty. Certainlyi^.^Jo^V.crin‘'ll.:t ?tVproperty^J- ,?”ct".SlttS eneting th. den.ity r«,«ir»..nt. <br />, Plannin? n.ceaaaty lot area <br />standard pl«t i? lea. th« 5.0 acres in the <br />, tor Lots 2.sn ‘’_i' olat would seem to address <br />dara pxax. x** ^oe 5.0 acres in <br />,ral issue, outlintd by tn oon.ld.r theissue, outlined by the Fiann....^;-^ <br />‘];;til'erin :h\*c"h"‘t"h’e^- «”« <br />ce. <br />, e- .n 1ft* wide qravel road to <br />ppllcants' PPoPO’jiJ^ 14" qravel dAveway to Lots <br />S-sac, with an ««f Jf,„’-„\„^q ”com»i..ion7 II not, <br />dJtltn” s'tandard. would Planning Commissi <br />t 14- <br />Lng commission wishes '^o recoiOTend approve^ <br />tor the »ia"«>''’ be made that would set <br />ion" ««tVr1i"lth.r futile applications requesting <br />aic.s in the 5 acre rone. <br />rd.r to Pjovldo 'oPoPO^'^iVg « "un«ilnV'’•■'"bv <br />«d"tha't subt«cl. from the overall acreage. <br />to the extremely billV fopogtaphy^and^^^^^^^ <br />;rroa°/wa'y"‘to'’*.«'vi ’on?r':''ree parcel, is necessarily <br />tcessive len9^^* <br />ovaral 1 den.ity '« ^J'thVVntMt"”'’ tVW’acie <br />'Vot'”«*."tVnd.r"d of tL RB-IA zoning district. <br />Zoning File #1470 November 14. 1989 Page 3 of 3If Planning Commission feels that these end other appropriate findings provide a substantial justification to grant the lot area variances requested, such that the precedent-setting aspect would be minimized, then a recommendation for approval of the proposed plat would be appropriate.On the other hand, if Planning Commission feels that granting the lot area variance here will ultimately lead to pressure for lot area variances on less unique properties in the 5 acre zone, then the PRD concept with three distinct building pads and commonly owned open space, could be considered.Staff would also note that if a recommendation for approval be forthcoming, the plat would be subject to the standard drainage and utility easements, a drainage easement over the major drainage ravine, park fees, private road easements and <br />covenants, etc. <br />Li -