Laserfiche WebLink
MIN'61'ES OF A PLANNING =LMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMB�.R 5, 1977 - PAGE 4 <br />Mr. Adams replied he had gone to great lengths <br />with the parties involved, with the Zoning A(iminist.rator <br />and the City Engineer and that they had a verbal <br />discussion and the City Engineer was favor-ifle in <br />his recommendation of the project. He _also h.id <br />asked the City Engineer to submit another 1-t ter <br />of his recommendation. It was at the (:it, Fnginocr's <br />suggestion that he call off his soil to is he, vise <br />It was felt they were not needed. <br />The Commission expressed concern because the City <br />Engineer had changed his recorunenda t i on from h i s <br />first letter when he recommended not approving <br />the subdivision. The Commission has received <br />many letters fr(•m the City Engineer in the past, <br />but this is the first time his recor.tmendation has <br />changed. They felt Tim Adams was entirely in goad <br />faith on his part, but they also felt there could be <br />serious problems if the subdivision was approved <br />and later it was found some of the lots were not <br />buildable. <br />The P, ann i ng Coiianiss ion addressed Lot 24. Mr. Adorns <br />stated he had gone to considerable cost to prepare <br />the alternative plans for Lot 24. 11.,! Commission <br />felt precedent indicated they could not allow a <br />one acre lot. <br />They felt they should follow the precedent and <br />require that Lot 24 meet the two acre minimum lot <br />area requirement. Mr. Adams stated he was agreeable <br />with that decision and added that he had done a <br />great deal of homework in preparing these plans and <br />felt some things just were not apparent from the <br />City Engineer's first report. <br />Commissioner Hassel moved, Commissioner Hurr <br />seconded, a motion to table the Public Hearing for <br />preliminary subdivision until a report is received <br />from the City Engineer on the soil conditions of the <br />lots indicating if the lots will support a satisfactory <br />on -site disposal system. <br />Motion - Ayes (4); Hammerel, Hassel., Hurr :and M-N nald: <br />Nays (3); Hannah, Frahm an. Wilson. The motion pissed. <br />After further discussion of the suh(ilvivlon, the <br />Commission retracted their nx)tion to t ihle the <br />proposal. <br />.JOHN HARIVELL <br />(cant i nu(•d) <br />i.M 7 <br />Commissioner Hassel mc)vpd, Commissioner !' ,rr <br />seconded, a nx t ion tc reconrund approval ccf the <br />pm•tition t. r i prel imi^ iry subdivision t-,-nt ingc nt <br />