09-06-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i^;J:<---.-y:mMMmBm'-:,id June 26, 1989 ough 3 and 5 and he applicant's 8 to be expanded tie same concern w years and the eloper providing drainage needs tie drainage plan r the Watershed ith established Please note defined show not ition. It is the District and the i to insure that 1 not impact the during heaving :s are standards id agencies. In enomena format clearly function neighbors have consideration. f to review the not given staff rs may clearly again staff has the review of le neighbors are iloper wishes to the developers ce again remind this is a rural onsideration. I er lots receive inderstand the ly sensitive to and low areas, ne variations in flat area that ince of ponds or as. I think the applicant. ......... ■■ :.... - = Wm0m v'.v.- v = -^:;y.-:mmyrnm X.: a&uki. ii *Zoning Pile #1411 September 1#Page 7 of 9ragts /cSipUance with ^he fub^yision^^^^^^^^^^^ ^heincorrect, but wouldn t be i-here have been twoCity_ for 11 'c«ated adjacent to_ aub.tMdardCity for 11 years and since . adiacent to substzmdardsubdivislona where outlets^ ^bv^^thrcityoarcels (The Ski Tonxa ^ -„k/Hv-iaion approval by the cityEach was a lot the owner of the properties toand the original parcel. The substandardbe developed around -rea requirement for theparcels were not ^jought up to the a^r«^ i^ezoning district rather the the time Lanier hadexpansion area ”^iVon was considering purchasing thehis property for “Svised that if he acquired the Lanier property. Jot lines would be erased and he substandard parcel that .^-t substandard parcel up to would be responsible for ri g appear per Exhibit P Mr. current code compliance. bring his property into two acre taniei had Reviw «Wbit 0 Mr. Carlson'scompliance since 1957. where there is discussion that juno 1988 is even “O'"®. land to Mr. Lanier because his the City would require him to gi This City had never JJ^pert? did no\”«« f out bknfp^^^ m tact, atrequired anyone to ^ive land up itn other two referenced thl time the City were Ht aside for purchase at the subdivisions, these o"^^fJf/®/or future septic development, time the areas were our ordinances to bring Clearly we have no development up to code, but we substandard parcels adjacent to of the revised plan would certainly encourage i . ^ixow for the creation of a ?here is adequate area but only if the separate outlet for future sept P ^wo cond’ ions developer would ^^ree. ^itv with authority to demand t nat a that would provide ^^® to development be brought up tosubstandard parcel adjacent ro current code standards: 2. If developer purchased substandard parcels adjacent to lands to be developed. AS for Item 4 the “PP^^^^®" ^''ff City ^w\*shVs" may*provide “reet and S‘««‘ ^Md aroa’^^ please review the ‘?op^V«"^er\*"ctrcVo'‘fi l?st 1 through 6 (Ehibit Q). Item I. Neither the or” Fox Stznt when access additional curb cut °^_A®/piat road. The land owners have «b^°tha1 ” th^L Sevelop« reasslre this in the private covanents. TOi developer should be asked to comment. ijSW; ■■Nf ■ mmMikyrnwymsBrfpffjfp' mm mfmm -'v-V VV *; • • . '..k- •y .J ;; m P- friy/yrr-: ^ ■v^r- mm m -vK a KmmysM ili y;- -V ■ :. = • Y • -1 Y-. V-y ’Y ■ .yy. . ■:• vaaat* ’-yY; Yy;:Y,..y;vyi^ M 'Y ‘ . --fV.-.' ; ; y Y. Y. .•■„.■ y m'sMM yiiji:£*YYSA mm&m ilY-Sffii -:.Y" i ‘V Y£3 £Y- ■J: ri r?" ';■ : -('■ wmm i. J. .Y^ m0mk'• vY;y;i y5Y