Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . <br /> Din? A rr-'? .. <br /> J\ '; r I <br />Planning: Minutes Pa!!e 8 7/05/95 <br />Chair Erickson inquired if a review by the Fir.e Chief has been done. Mr. Fritsinger indicated the . <br />previous Fire Chief indicated his concerns with any island in a cul-de-sac. . <br />Mr. Krier indicated the island in the cul-de-sac could be removed. <br />Larson inquired as to the benefits of reducing the lots to four Mr. Ringwald indicated staff felt by . <br />reducing the number oflots to four, this would give the same results as reducing the cul-de-sac, but <br />would make the plan code consistent. I <br />Nelson inquired if the original plans meets all requirements. Mr. Ringwald indicated assuming the <br />original plan was being presented, it would meet all requirements except Lot 1 and the rear yard I <br />setback requirement. He reminded the Commission, that is not the proposed plan. <br />Chair Erickson indicated the Commission needs to review if the lots meet the requirements of the . <br />Ordinance, and not the design of the homes. He indicated although it is the City's intent to save trees <br />during development as much as possible, during construction no one has much say in the survival of . <br />the trees. <br />Chair Erickson indicated it would be his opinion or recommendation to table the application, so the -. <br />applicant could work with the staff to modifY the plans to meet ordinance requirements. <br />Rye indicated he believed the variance for the cul-de-sac is reasonable in regards to saving trees, but . <br />even more desirable for the elimination of ejector pumps. <br />Chair Erickson inquired if a PUD is an option. Mr. Ringwald indicated if the Commission is looking I <br />to review the same issue, it may not be prudent to go to a PUD, but if new issues are addressed, it <br />may be appropriate. <br />Mr. Ron Balfany, the applicant, indicated the same setbacks would be required for four lots, as it . <br />would for five lots. <br />Sand inquired as to a site plan for four lots. Mr. Ringwald indicated Mr. Bergly reviewed this case . <br />and sketched various options, but there is no formal site plan available. <br />Nelson inquired if there would be four lots, would variances be required. Mr. Ringwald indicated no I <br />variances would be needed. <br />Sand inquired if ejector pumps would be necessa!)'. Mr. Ringwald indicated the same area would be . <br />impacted, so only the lower levels if needed would use ejector pumps. <br />Sand inquired if the applicant would be willing to develop four lots. The applicant indicated they I <br />would not be interested in only four lots. -. <br /> . <br />