My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-22-1993 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
09-22-1993 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2013 11:38:56 AM
Creation date
9/5/2013 11:36:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 <br />Gust reported that he has reviewed this ordinance, and <br />indicated that many of the trees on the property are <br />not the type protected by the ordinance. Those that <br />are protected that need to be removed will be replaced <br />in compliance with ordinance requirements. <br />Greg Maranda, 3058 LaBore Road, asked the location of <br />the proposed holding pond, and also asked about the <br />affect of the development on the proposed road between <br />his property and 3060 LaBore Road. <br />Gust showed the location of the holding pond. <br />Maranda was concerned that water from the holding pond <br />would seep toward his house. <br />Gust replied that it has not been determined whether <br />the pond would be a retention pond or an filtration <br />pond. <br />Maranda reported that he once saw a plan which proposed <br />a road from LaBore Road to County Road D to develop <br />this area. Maranda again wondered about the proposed <br />road between 3058 and 3060 LaBore Road. <br />Schletty pointed out that there would be a problem <br />putting a road through a wetland area. <br />Gust stated that the DNR has not designated the area as <br />wetland, although the Army Corps of Engineers will need <br />to comment on the development. <br />Sue Reibel, 3088 LaBore Road, reported that her <br />property is large enough for two lots to be developed <br />in the back. Reibel was concerned that the development <br />as proposed this evening would landlock her property. <br />Reibel reported that she discussed the development <br />proposal with Cliff Aichinger and the DNR and was <br />informed that there are flowing springs on the property <br />in question, and these springs cannot be eliminated. <br />Keis asked how Reibel anticipated getting access to her <br />two back lots. <br />Reibel replied that moving her garage was a possibility <br />for providing access. However, Reibel reported that it <br />was her understanding that there was road right -of -way <br />platted along the back property lines of her lot and <br />the others along LaBore Road which ran all the way up <br />to County Road D. <br />Keis asked if there was such a road easement, and if <br />there was, the effect on the proposed development. <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.