Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Wickland asked if a drainage plan had been presented. <br />The Director of Community Development stated that it had not <br />been, noting that the concern for drainage on the property <br />stretched back to the special use permit issued for the church <br />in 1966. <br />Mr. Breems stated that the c?urch could provide a topographic <br />plan of the site. <br />Mr. Stienstra stated that there was already a 3 ft. high, 10 ft. <br />wide berm shown on the plan and that this area is already seeded <br />with grass and Russian Olive trees. He stated that he did not <br />feel it was necessary to make this a condition of the plan <br />approval since it was required by code. <br />The Director of Community Development noted that such a screen <br />would not be a code requirement, since the Church was already <br />in existence and that it would only be a requirement if the <br />Church had come after the lots. <br />Motion by Medved, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval <br />of VN=177 with the conditions that: <br />1. Both lots created should be served by a single driveway <br />centered on the common property line. <br />2. A 5 foot snow storage easement should be granted adjacent <br />to 16A St. NW. <br />3. A 5 foot drainage easement should be provided along the <br />common property line between the lots. <br />4 Installation and maintenance ofa 10 foot landscaped strip <br />with a 3 foot berm and Russian Olive plantings along the <br />boundary line-between the church parking lot and the 2 <br />lots. <br />such recommendation to be based on the following `findings of fact: <br />1. There would be an extreme under-use of property with <br />only 1 lot accessing onto the cul-de-sac, such extreme <br />under-use-being a hardship. <br />2. The cul-de-sac was not installed deep enough to permit <br />adequate service to the property in question and this <br />constitutes a unique circumstance. <br />Motion carried 4 0