Laserfiche WebLink
/'7t/�/I{��rVl{�• �i.YiTY:L •�• W�V Yfabri�v Ji��i�Lif V� � isva� E�Wilia l' <br />t�n�a#io��: t�a►cth of �"ronsii �ve�u� �:r�+� �a�t e+s t�r�i� ��ru�� <br />Acr;� Rec�resre�arr�a! of revis�� prelimen�ry P1� <br />' Plc�nnir r� Considerartfc�n3: <br />` l. This piot w� previously �nnsid�r+�c� �,nd qpproved at the �Vtarch �rzeeiing of the <br />� Plannar� Cc�missi�o Subsequ�ni i�o thi� appravale �ere �ap�e�rs to have be�n <br />fou�d an r�rror in Ph� dimensions of fhe {�r�d to be platted. 9nus, thc� e�plicc,nt <br />has submatfied a r�v4sed ptalimin�ry p�dt with adjusted lot dimer�ions to a�cc�r�odate <br />the discrepa�cy ir� averall dimensfon. <br />2. The pldt pr�opose� to develop c tatai of six iots alo�� �he north slde of Tre�rtsit Avenve, <br />alrec�dy dedicoted. The �ni#i�l plat had five 80 foc�� lots cand ona �1.b2 foot lot at <br />the eost�erly i�rid. �+n exisi�iru,� i�ouse oceupies ti�e wesi�er�y I�t. <br />3. !t t�peair� that fi�� initia! surv�y done in conjuntion �vith the construction of the <br />hovs� or� the �evesterly lot vra� in error approxima�eiy 1Q feet. Thus, �h� revised <br />pint naw► under consideration proposes o 90 foot d�mQnsian for the wc:�ssterly !dt <br />thor�by reducing th�e rer �rining lots ta �v� 78 foo#� lofis aand the eoster�y -�rrast iot to <br />79.62 fe�et. Thus, the ap�licant has made up the 10 foot Icass by reducing t}�e <br />rerroai nirng l ots each approxi mate l y fwo feet . <br />�. Th�a prop►osed 1ot frontcx�es are now sev�n f�efi dEss than the stoted minimc�m in th� <br />ordinanc;�. Of or�e lot w�re to be dAlet�d, there would be four lots of c�pproxima�ly <br />100 feet of fror�tage for each lot. Thus, the 100 foat la�s wauld be fifteen feet over <br />the required minimum. <br />5. Th� que�ction i$, then, wrh�tl�er or nvt i! is reasonable to allow �he ��e lots with frontdga <br />� sev�n #'�et less Phar� thQ minirr�um or is it more rea�onable to r�quire fcwr lots �ifteen <br />fe�t ove�r 4he minimum. <br />6. The lofis ca originaily proposed (80 X 170 feet) produced a lot ar�a of 13,640 square <br />feet. The lot areo would narn+ �be 34Q sc�uare feet less� or 13,2f�4 square feet. This is, <br />of caurs�e, over phe requirecl minimum of 11,(�0 square f�eet. <br />7. It wauld) Appear tha§� the two foofi different3a) would not be significant •iisudlly to th� <br />extent thot it would reduce the ge�erel qur�lity of fihe develc�pment. I� �ioes,of cou�cse, <br />reduce t�he bui idabte �Frontage of the �ot by two fee�, whicl� wauld have to be accommo- <br />da#�d �ni the design of �he speci�c hcavses to occupy the lots. <br />8. /�ttache�d is a co�y of the previous report prepared for the initeai applicc��ion. <br />l�J <br />