Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Commissioner Brauer, seconded rid by site ommissioner Cle <br />until h to <br />fo lowing <br />applicant's request for preliminary plat plan approval un <br />information is received and accepted by staff: <br />Test pits that confirm that the soil on the proposed site of the community <br />septic system is undisturbed and acceptable for construction of the <br />proposed system. <br />2) Revised sizing assumptions that utilize the proposed sizing suggestions <br />stated in the City Staff Review letter dated September 26, 2006. <br />3) Information regarding the exact location of the community mseptic system management and <br />4) Information regarding the responsible party arty <br />maintenance of the community septic system. <br />s Further discussion: Commissioner Brauer stated he has stated numerous ti e t at <br />of <br />recommendation should be followed; the Commission should support <br />recommendation. Commissioner Van Scoy inee Jankowski staff whether the are always <br />contingency would cover concerns. City E g . , , s ��.� d �. e <br />mot ons Ktlia win e out of the Punning .Commissions :v ith ntingencies. <br />�. Council taT�es <br />acceptable to come from the Planning Commission, but when the City <br />action it should be certain that what they have approved can actually be constructed in <br />that thaieanner because there are legal rights given to the applicant at preliminary plat. <br />Associate Planner Dalnes asked if the Planning Commission v ciizTdlike to o l s,0 iail <br />data once ':it is coiripleted. Chairperson Nix questioned f the Planning o <br />would receive any <br />iv more inform i than a paragraph in the Staff Revie getter stating <br />that`the Associate <br />Lein meets' City ? gmrements for septic .if the were to table : <br />A ssoc <br />Planner Dames rep ed the Staff Re view Letter would lik inc a paragraph _ <br />ys <br />the -regarding tie. soil is .satisfactor} and can `now moveorward to City <br />Council. Chairperson Nixt requested clarification that ane and and Commission will s changed i e <br />detailed information to provide direct Conmtomths on pl Associate Planner Dalnes responded <br />Council will <br />Council it to the Planning <br />in the rznatve Cliairp <br />erson Nixt expressed` his .preference to- ,include tt septi design <br />as .a contingency, rather than tabling action and delaying on concerns of process. <br />staff. City Engineer <br />Van Scoy asked if the contingency will <br />Jankowski replied the contingency would be enb based on the a has <br />often <br />Commission to proceed. He noted there are contingencies <br />of a WMO permit to be certain that storm sewer needs are met. Chairperson Nixt <br />noted there are many contingencies based on government ldactions. aWhile e he respects i the <br />position of the motion he does not know that y royals. <br />than is often the case with any number of third party approvals. <br />Motion failed. Voting Yes: Commissioners Brauer andnd Cleveland. <br />Scoy. . Votinng o: <br />Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Hunt, Tnte <br />Commissioner Levine. <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Trites Rolle, to <br />Condos co reco m end <br />preliminary plat and site plan approval for Northfork Off <br />compliance with the City Staff Review Letter dated September 26, 2006, and contingent <br />1) <br />• <br />