Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 <br />ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED <br />the site and felt that the topography was such that in order to <br />achieve 3 lots, the applicant should proceed with a PRD. <br />Planning Commissioner Brown concurred with Kelley. <br />Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he too agreed that a <br />PRD would be the best approach and added that it may be necessary <br />to have only a 2-lot subdivision. <br />Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Gaffron to explain the <br />existing 60' road easement. <br />Gaffron explained that the easement was granted to the <br />Reiersgoid property. Gaffron said that the way the Zoning Code <br />reads the 60' easement would be excluded from the area devoted to <br />the 5-acre calculation of acreage. <br />Planning Commissioner Bellows said that this property <br />presented an excellent opportunity for a PRD. She said that too <br />many variances would be required in order to proceed in any other <br />manner. Bellows indicated that she did not like the proposed <br />location for the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1. <br />Gaffron asked the Planning Commission how they would respond <br />to a proposal locating the alternate drainfield site in Outlet A <br />if a PRD was pursued. <br />Bellows responded that she would prefer to see the alternate <br />drainfield site located somewhere other than across an easement. <br />She questioned whether it could exist in one of the other <br />outlets? <br />Mr. Parten questioned the size of the building envelope and <br />how the size is determined? <br />Chairman Kelley informed Mr. Parten that such a decision <br />would be his to make. <br />Mr. Parten asked for direction in this regard. <br />Gaffron indicated that he would like to see the building <br />envelope at a minimum of two acres. <br />Johnson questioned the possibility of creating an access to <br />serve adjacent properties as v;ell. <br />Mary Petersen expressed her concern about the crossing of <br />the Luce Line. She said that the DNR had indicated their <br />preference to have no crossing of the Luce Line and should there <br />be future development of the property in this area that Bayside <br />Road be used for access rather than the Luce Line. <br />Mrs. Parten asked what the requirements would be for the