Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
r w —' - T—r-T-- - -nyiw'1— <br />t <br />m <br />I <br />I <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1981 <br />The Planning Commission met on the above date. The <br />following members were present; Chairman Hammerel, <br />Jabbour, McDonald, Goetten, and Adams arrived at 7:40. <br />Mabusth represented the City staff. <br />Richard Raiche was present. Mabusth noted the certi­ <br />ficate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. <br />No one was present in the audience for the applica­ <br />tion. <br />Jabbour was concerned with the septic system and the <br />high water. Raiche noted that he would remove the <br />gravel road prior to final subdivision approval and <br />new road constructed along west edge of the property. <br />Goetten motioned to approve the application subject <br />to the following conditions; <br />1) Private driveway to serve all three lots, no direct <br />access for Lot 1 to Watertown Rd. <br />2) Removal of existing road down center of property. <br />Developer’s agreement will be required if improve­ <br />ments not completed prior to final plat approval. <br />3) City to acquire road and utilities easement over <br />driveway outlet. <br />4) All disturbed area to be seeded within 10 days of <br />grading completion. <br />5) Payment of park dedication tee in amount of $600.00 <br />$200.00 for each lot. <br />McDonald moved to second. Vote; Ayes (4), Nays (0). <br />Mr. and Mrs. Strong were present. Mabusth noted the <br />certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publica­ <br />tion. Mo one was present in the audience to address <br />this application. <br />Jabbour questioned the maximum width of the proposed <br />driveway and hoped that a minimum of 14 ft. from the <br />lot line could be maintained because of the proximity <br />of wet lands. In reality, the road serves two lots <br />to the rear of the property and therefore could main­ <br />tain the standards of a private driveway. This road <br />would never be used as a proposed through road. He <br />would recommend limiting the width of the road out <br />lot to 30 ft. with the normal cul de sac of 100 ft. <br />ATTENDANCE <br />7;30 PM <br />RICHARD RAICHE <br />2901 Watertown Rd <br />Subdivision <br />#603 <br />7;30-7;35 PM m <br />;,r ' \ 4 • <br />i--.: :: ■ ' <br />RUXTON R. STRONG <br />420 So. Brown Rd. <br />Subdivision <br />#609 <br />7:45-7:50 PM <br />! <br />1^-,. <br />: .'aL:. <br />McDonald asked Strong to describe what was taking <br />place the day the site inspector made a site inspec­ <br />tion. Strong stated that this was an attempt to <br />clear the drainfield lines, but that he would check with <br />the site inspector on questions he had concerning the <br />existing septic system. <br />' rfr