Laserfiche WebLink
MINDTES OP THE PLANMIMG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 198^ <br />ZONING FILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED <br />Kelley observed that if Outlot A were put in with only a 50' <br />easement, Outlot A and Lot 1 will be contiguous. <br />Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlot A. <br />Hanson noted that such a configuation would create "the <br />ultimate flag lot". <br />Bellows indicated that she did not approve of this <br />configuration. <br />Hanson indicated that the land would lend itself well to <br />development with the adjacent property. <br />Bellows suggested the property be developed as a 3-lot PRD <br />with the houses clustered. She said that what the Partens are <br />proposing more closely resembles a conventional subdivision. <br />Mabusth interjected that the Planning Commission's directive <br />to have the septic systems included in the homestead pad with a <br />PRD proposal made it very difficult. <br />Bellows indicated that she would not object to the septic <br />systems being located in a commc s area. She said that the <br />septic system location is an item that had to give in order to <br />not have this application be a typical subdivision. <br />Ms. Parten explained that the PRD being proposed is the best <br />that can be done due to the topography of the land. <br />Bellows suggested that perhaps the City has reached a degree <br />of development where a certain amount of acreage no longer <br />guarantees a certain amount of lots. <br />Ms. Parten said that she was frustrated because she could <br />not understand how there could be 50 acres in an area that will <br />not sustain 4 lots. <br />Chairman Kelley asked Bellows for her opinion regarding the <br />2-lot subdivision proposal he suggested with the 2 outlets. <br />Bellows replied that she was uncomfortable with the overall <br />shape of the subdivision and tne location of the alternate septic <br />site for Lot 2. <br />Planning Commissioner Brown observed that lot area variances <br />would be required for two of the three lots being proposed. <br />Mabusth suggested that it would not be difficult to make <br />unique findings that would still allow denial of other less <br />unique applications seeking lot area variances for newly created <br />lots. Mabusth said that the extension of the road and the <br />inclusion of the Styles property placed restrictions on the <br />development of the parcel. Mabusth said that an area variance