Laserfiche WebLink
fUHOTBS OP nit PIAimiK COHHISSIOa VI8G SBPnMBBK 18, 1989 <br />80SIB6 PILE fl457-CABLSOII CXWriMIlSD <br />Mr. Schirmers pointed out specific lots on the diagram and <br />stated that because of the severe slope and poor percolation <br />rates some of the sites will be limited as to septic development. <br />Chairman Kelley asked how the City protects the alternate <br />sites from being destroyed for the purpose of constructing tennis <br />courts and other accessory structures. <br />Mabusth said that the City will have to warn the future <br />property owier, not only the developer of the need to protect <br />those site:;. Mabusth said that the City has not specifically <br />done this in the past although those concerns were always <br />addressed when accessory structure permits were requested. <br />Mabusth said that a copy of the mapping of the septic sites <br />approved with the preliminary subdivision would filed with a <br />covenant or another appropriate document. <br />The Planning Commission as a whole, with the exception of <br />Planning Commissioner Cohen, did not object to the road be <br />located in the designated wetland. <br />In regard to configuration as a whole, Cohen indicated that <br />he believed the plan was calling for more lots than the area can <br />efficiently handle. Bellows said that the < nfiguration as shown <br />would not get her approval, due to the flag lot and pushing the <br />parcel to its limit of development. Brown said that he would <br />vote favorably if it is demonstrated that the lots can handle two <br />septic sites and if there are no variances required. He also <br />conditioned that upon the septic being approved. Hanson said <br />that he had trouble with the northwest configuration, the flag <br />lot and that he felt the density was a bit too high. Moos opined <br />that the development was too dense for the topography and that <br />she too objected to the flag lot. <br />Ml Carlson asked the Planning Commission for direction and <br />more specific information as to what they would like to see him <br />do. <br />Kelley said that he would like to see all lots meet the <br />width standard, irrespective of configuration, including a direct <br />access to the lot. <br />Bellows summarized that the road through the wetlands is no <br />problem, but it must provide direct access to the dry buildable <br />portion of the lots. <br />The Planning Commission suggested that Mr. Carlson may have <br />to revise his proposal showing one less lot along the east side <br />in order to meet the 200* front width. <br />There were no further comments from the public regarding <br />this matter and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by