Laserfiche WebLink
■WMilll.l ■ <br />■* :' <br />UARVr 1» 1982 Page 6 <br />(TONKA CONT.) <br />.ng <br />.e <br />.Iding <br />had <br />the <br />driveway <br />11 <br />mes <br />plows <br />cul <br />like <br />the <br />as one <br />sider <br />court <br />Id be <br />ipproved <br />. use <br />//SCHLEE BUILDERS <br />3660 Shoreline Dr. <br />Subdivision <br />#671 <br />4". <br />1^ ^ <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1982 Page 7 <br />Rovegno stated that the Planning Conunission should <br />consider the building envelopes# setback# title held# <br />open space and walkway easements. <br />Mabusth stated that the 36 units density for the Tonka <br />land resulted from agreements made as a comparison over <br />a potential commercial use. <br />Opheiro stated that the City would have to review the <br />covenants of this subdivision. <br />Rovegno asked why did they decide on building envelopes <br />rather than platted lots. <br />Applicant stated that the Homeowners Association was <br />something that they didn't want to get involved in» <br />Kelley stated that actually allowed by code was 48 <br />residential units but that the court approved 36.. <br />McDonald stated that if combined it would be 48 total <br />allowable. <br />Kelley stated that as long as the applicants stay <br />within the zoning that they were allowed 48 units. <br />Applicant stated that they were doing the community <br />a favor and asked the Planning Commission if they <br />preferred spreading out through acreage or the multi <br />dwellings. <br />Rovegno asked if there was a problem with sewer serving <br />this property? <br />Mabusth stated that the City has had problems with the <br />lift station in the past and that the applicant would <br />be responsible for all costs if any assistance would <br />be needed for the lift station. <br />Kelley stated he preferred multi dwellings rather <br />than single family dwellings. <br />Rovegno noted that the LR-lC-1 was a special zoning <br />district so they get a credit. He noted that the <br />design was the function of the subdivider but that <br />it has to comply with the code. <br />Applicant asked the Planning Commission to take an <br />informal poll as to whether they liked the single <br />family units or the multi dwellings better. <br />Kelley stated that 48 units and that they should <br />be attached maybe doubles. <br />Callahan abstained. <br />Goetten preferred the single family 48 units but <br />wouldn't be against attache!. <br />(SCHLEE CONT.)