My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1974.07.24 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
1974 PC Minutes
>
1974.07.24 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/3/2015 11:54:49 AM
Creation date
3/3/2015 11:54:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
7/24/1974
Document Type
Minutes
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
• -2- <br /> Mr. Waugh was told to drop the word Private ditch and put drainage <br /> ditch when he made the final plat. <br /> Lot #6 is smaller and needs a variance. <br /> Motion made by Spitzer, seconded by Schletty, recommending the <br /> approval of the Traeger' s Addition it as filed with the following <br /> conditions; <br /> 1. Park land dedication of $1,000 from the present owner. <br /> 2. All lots as platted be filed with restrictive covenaatt3 <br /> indicated: <br /> A. No home shall be constructed on any lot unless the home <br /> site elevation is at least one foot above the adjacent <br /> street grade. <br /> B. Lot #6 covenant shall require no home shall be constructed <br /> unless vehicular access be provided to Play Avenue oily. <br /> C. On Lot #7 no home shall be constructed unless vehicular <br /> access be provided along the west lot bouxdry and in <br /> common with vehicular access of home constructed on lot <br /> #8. <br /> D. On Lot #8 no home shall be constructed unless vehicular <br /> access be provided along the east bouxdry and inc common <br /> with Vehicular access of home site on lot #7. <br /> NOTE: It is recog1izedtths t ;proposed lot 6 is in its north south <br /> dimensions are less thal that required by the Subdivision <br /> Ordinance, however, the imposition of restriction D above <br /> should make the lot inoffensive as far as traffic -is con- <br /> cerned and should make the intent of the plat acceptable <br /> to the general standards of the city. <br /> Members for: Peloquin, Ehret, Spitzer and Schletty. Motion carried. <br /> ELEANOR LEASE - MINOR SUBDIVISION <br /> Mr. and Mrs. Lease are anticipating purchasing a piece of property <br /> from Mr. Muggs and wanted the opinion of the Planning Commission <br /> prior to inYes:ting money in surveying, etc. They were told they <br /> would have to show proof of a 66' land easement. No action was <br /> taken. <br /> VERN PELOQUIN - MINOR SUBDIVISION <br /> Mr. Ehret read the application for a minor subdivision. Mr. Peloquix <br /> submitted his entire plan of the Peloquix Industrial Plan. Mr. Schwab <br /> said he would like to see it platted with blocks. Mr. Spitzer said <br /> there was xo advantage for Peloquin to plat it ix blocks and no <br /> advantage to the city except to have cleaner legal description. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.