1979-01-24 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 24, 1979 Page 2 ~""Ocode and policy requiremenCa, He added that a variance recomcnandation Would be required i£ rhe code addition wae not appraved. Official Roee raported thaC water and aewer ia atubbed to the property linee for Lota 1-A inclueive, with Lot 7 already ueing service, and Lote 6 and B-1Q inclusive have aewer end watar service availabla in the street. He added that watar only ie etubbed to L~t 5 while aewer ie available in the atreet. Limited etorm sewer servica is evailaUle on Greenwood Drive, with cateh basine, but thet eyeCem doas not maet a three yQar etorm frequency capaciYy, and tha propoeed development would increaee that dei•iciency. The present easemente are adequate unleas a public i~pxovemer.t ~o made, euch ae etox~m sewer. Official Roee recouunended that all lot.s be required ~n draiu raspect- ively to the etreat frontages, and that basementa nr cellars below a 907 elevation be required to be drain tiled. He also recommended boriding for the einNle family lots of $500 earh and $1,000 each Eor the R-2 lote. Officisl Roae recommended that the. preliminnry plat be approved with the rezoning of Luta 5 and 6 from R-1 Co R~2 and that a acudy be raquested to define the impact on the exieting drainage capacir.y of the area, at the expenae of the developer, and a development agreement to minimally include the draining, druin tile and bondi~g. He aleo racommended a code amendment or vari.anca for the 82.5 foot lote. ,--~_ Commiseion Member Glazer asked why bonding would be requixed for the usingle family homea. Official Rose replied that it ia required of any major Aubdivieion of three or more lota, and thie would help ineure that the lote were dra£ned properly and eo f'orth. Acting Chairperaon Fedor aeked if the Council had passed an amendment to allow 75 foot lota in subdivieions. Official Roae reolied that it only appl.ied to minor subdivieione. Acting Chairperson r`edor pointed out that the appllcant ceuld come ~n for subdivieione of two lots at a time aad get them approved wi.thout a varience. Commi.saion Member Burmeieter etated thet the purpose of the ordinance revision ':ad been to ~llow people with 150 faot Iots to eubdivide 3nco two 75 foot lote when they had no other land avatlable. She also pointdd out that there wi11 be an ir!pact on the atorm eewar with the development and aeked if the impact would be lesaened if [he applicant oreated one leeR lot, ae he was doficient in width already. 0££icial Roee repYied the problem would still be present, even with on~ lese lat. Victor Viella, developer uf the property , etaCed that the land was primarily six seperate lota now, which he waa trying to divide in half. Ht added thut he wae not certain how one or two additional homes could cantribute to the def.iciency of the sCOrm sewer eynCem, eince the water would atill be there. ` $o~iasion Member Glazer aeked why the lota on the north eide were 109 ~ofeet wide, aud auggested that they be adjusted so that the other loCs would be closer to code. Mr. Viella replied thst there wae ~uaC one lot on the nortii si3e, which he aplit in half. Commi.seion Member