10-17-1988 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

laHUTBS OF THE PLAliNIKG CONMISSIOH TIHG OCTOBER 17, 1988 II HIZOHIHG FILE 11334-RBBERS COMTIH fence, but basically he concurred with Johnson and Kelley. Moos suggested using evergreens, or arborvitae, along the 3 lots for a visual screen. She reiterated Bellows' opinion concerning keeping trespassers out entirely. Bellows stated that it would be up to the Platteters to take proper safety measures pertaining to the pool. She added that she had a stream runninq through her property and she could not as] the DNR to protect the stream from potential trespassers. Bellows questioned whether vegetation would even grow in that area due to shade. Mr. Jarvis stated that there would be 100' separating the Platteter property from the nearest building pad in the proposed subdivision. Johnson suggested striking item The other Planning Commission members concurred. "e" from the staff's recommendations. The next item addressed was woodland preservation/no-grading areas. Bellows asked Jarvis what the specific covenants were that pertained to those areas. Jarvis stated that he wanted to limit any tree removal within the wooded area of the lots, as well as the outlets. Kelley asked if the preservation standards would apply to brush. Jarvis stated that the covenants would not discourage brush removal for the purpose of tidiness. Kelley suggested limiting tree removal to trees under 2" within the entire lot, except in the area where driveways would be located. Hanson indicated that he wanted the homeowner to have the freedom to do whatever they desire in the front of the lot. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission, as a whole, agreed that trees 2" and above must remain on all sides of the lot, except in the location where a driveway would be placed. The brush can be removed. Steve Pflaum questioned whether dead or diseased trees could be removed? Kelley stated that they could, but he would not address the issue of who would determine whether a tree was diseased or not. It was determined that Item "d" should read "limit grading activities to a specific level and require City approval if it is to be exceeded." Mr. Jarvis said if that condition would relate back to the 80% of the pad area he would not object. Planning Commission member Cohen wanted to address the issue of the access. Planning Commission member Hanson concurred. Cohen did not believe that the current proposal was safe. Mr. Kost stated that the access was moved to its proposed location because staff had indicated that was where they wanted it. Mr. Jarvis interjected that the access was a non-issue, in that they would place it wherever the City desired. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she disagreed with the City Engineer and preferred the access to be at the crest of the hill. Hanson concurred. Cohen stated that he too agreed because traffic would indeed increase considerably. Chairman Kelley wanted assurance that all Planning Commission members understood the proposal concerning the