03-12-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIIIUTBS OF THE PIAHimiG COMMISSIOH MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989TEMDER 18, 1989application until iewed by the staff sr Brown questioned : drainage ditches ed that they would elley placed the orination pertaining ng back before the Motion passed. 00 P.M. ate of Mailing were ssentative for the h provided a brief sgarding this matter onded by Planning the commercial site .on of an additional 09 P.M. ate of Mailing were 5th explained that rect due because a eluded. Staff has n hardcover in the 11 be a 1* to 1.5' lin • C whether he sr sr to keep Dt to remove any of M i ZONING PILE #1457-CAHLSON CONTINL_Mr. Schirmers pointed out specific lots on the diagram and stated that because of the severe slope and poor percolation rates some of the sites will be limited as to septic development.Chairman Kelley asked how the City protects the alternate sites from being destroyed for the purpose of constructing tennis courts and other accessory structures.Mabusth said that the City will have to warn the future property owner, not only the developer of the need to protect those sites. Mabusth said that the City has not specifically done this in the past although those concerns were always addressed when accessory structure permits were requested. Mabusth said that a copy of the mapping of the septic sites approved with the preliminary subdivision would filed with a covenant or another appropriate document. The Planning Commission as a whole, with the exception of Planning Commissioner Cohen, did not object to the road be located in the designated wetland. In regard to configuration as a whole, Cohen indicated that he believed the plan was calling for more lots than the area can efficiently handle. Bellows said that the configuration as shojra would not get her approval, due to the flag lot and pushing the parcel to its limit of development. Brown said that he would vote favorably if it is demonstrated that the lots can handle two septic sites and if there are no variances required. He also conditioned that upon the septic being approved. Hanson that he had trouble with the northwest configuration# the lot and that he felt the density was a bit too high. Moos that the development was too dense for the topography and that she too objected to the flag lot. Mr. Carlson asked the Planning Commission for direction and more specific information as to what they would like to see him do. Kelley said that he would like to see all lots meet the width standard# irrespective of configuration# including a direct access to the lot. Bellows summarized that the road through the wetlands is no problem, but it must provide direct access to the dry buildable portion of the lots. The Planning Commission suggested that Mr. Carlson may have to revise his proposal showing one less lot along the east side in order to meet the 200* front width. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by