Laserfiche WebLink
^ J • <br />MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 6, 1981 Page 3 <br />I <br />Mabusth stated that the plat would be returned to the <br />Planning Commission if any lot line changes were necessary. <br />Frahm moved to approve the application of John i» <br />Laurent subject to the following conditions: <br />1) Lots 1 and 2 share common access via 46' corridor. <br />2) Lot 2 grant an access and utilities easement in favor <br />of Lot 1. <br />3) Septic test information must be submitted and reviewed <br />prior to Council action on preliminary plat. If such <br />results involve changes in lot lines, the plat will be <br />l3)^ought back to the Planning Commission for review. <br />4) Flowage and conservation easement over the designated <br />wetlands. <br />5) underlying road and utilities easement acquired by City <br />over outlet A. <br />6) Park dedication fee in amount of $400, $200 for each lot. <br />Goetten moved to second. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). <br />Mr. Robert Bredeson was present and there were no other <br />members in the audience to address this application. <br />Goetten questioned why the applicant was tearing down .7.^^ p.n«; <br />the house that seemed in good condition. Bredeson stated 7:30-8.05 <br />that the house was over 50 years old and had severe <br />structural problems that needed correcting• The cost <br />of repair would be comparable to constructing a new <br />house. <br />Staff noted that the applicant seeks direction from the <br />Planning Commission regarding more desired setback variances. <br />The Planning Commission is being asked to determine a <br />recommended building envelope. <br />Hammerel asked how this could be an action item if they <br />do not have the final site plan. Staff advised that <br />this could easily be tabled if the Planning Commission <br />required the final plan. <br />Jabbour felt that several of the proposed houses present­ <br />ed by the applicant were much to ambitious for the lot. <br />He advised Bredeson that the new plan must take into con­ <br />sideration the question of excessive hard cover. <br />ROBERT BREDESO^ <br />1410 Rest Point <br />Variance <br />#607 t 1