Laserfiche WebLink
o. « F««™> C0»a«»0. 1... <br />^ from the public regardingThere were no ««'ther co«®en <br />this matter and the public hearing wa <br />^ asked for clarification <br />planning Commissioner ^ Kelley explained that the <br />““Vi' .11.. <«r <br />;Ki?: o' o""'* <br />It »•• oovoo by'lojoj;'"”“U;K5n “”«pt’"5!l o< t». <br />'o '«“o.iot oo.-«io... <br />I. „tl,...y .o=... 'O »oVOJo/"““ .«a"V.A*otV • <br />dtl«««y ••'"ot -oo..* "« o' • P'OP <br />I. » t.....loo 0..1O b. tot«™o.«. >« .oo.rt.oo. -«« to. <br />City Engineer’e recomaiendetionB . <br />3. That 33' of road*^oStlS^ thertr?op'vr;;“br.ror prt?.“pf.' o-o ■«' <br />2 .»*12 “ •“■>ioo* “ “• <br />$200.00. . <br />5. The tbe^building permit, <br />proposed house on Lot 2 prior <br />$. Standard drainage and utility easement, shall be shown <br />on the plat map. „4.4iitv <br />Kelley questioned whether the »tan^«a /^In.^e <br />eaLment would include the retention pondj^ tion <br />making that an *^^^tional 1 fiowage and t®ne®fvation <br />to include the teq«ite®«“t tji^ t^^^ <br />easement be taken for t . driveway would be preferredSSwell asked whether the shared drivwy access to <br />the event Mr. *-“« ;^\*** replied that would be P'«*«7*d. Mr^ Lauer's property? plley P access may ^nterfer <br />Bauser expressed “ia conc« expressed his confusion <br />with existing trees. n of Hanson's motion. ®e"“®2regarding the intent of condition fi allow Mr. Hauser the <br />clarified that it hi» j-n\*“^\®j; \i„a ,o the new driveway <br />option : slightly ^driveway. Kelley explained thatcould IMS a.;cessed from the old d v^^^| ^yoid any additional <br />the shared driveway would P ^ Motion, Ayes-6, Hays-O, <br />curb cuts onto North Perndale Koao. <br />Motion passed.