05-21-96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Baker asked if anyone else wished to comment. Huberty said there is not 6 acres back there. What would stop the people owning the rest of the lots from doing the same thing? All those people would come out this little private road. Baker asked again if there were more public comments. There was no response. Motion by Baker, seconded PH by Blomquist . 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Zisla asked what authority does the City Council have to waive Chapter 26 regarding fronting on public streets. Mattila responded that, typically, if that were to be waived, it would have to take the form of an amendment. There has been liberal interpretation of Chapter 26 in the past. There was a subdivision approved having flag-shaped lots on Stinson Boulevard and a private driveway coming over to the flag stems. There was also a private driveway constructed within an actual portion of Valley View Lane right-of-way. Mattila said that, in this case, there is no frontage on public right-of-way, so there is no real precedent for this proposal. Zisla said past action should not be the only determining factor and waiving Chapter 26 should be carefully considered. Mattila answered the only way to waive Chapter 26 is through formal amendment process. Blomquist asked, if the proposal were approved, how many other situations exist in the city for which this would be a precedent. Blomquist said he thought it could be as many as 25 or 30 similar situations. Mattila concurred that this could be a precedent-setting action. It could be a precedent for lots in R-1 districts also. Blomquist stated he did not believe it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to set this precedent. Baker said that he understands that so many doubles in that area have created a snow removal problem. Baker said the proposed driveway is unacceptable. PL-228. Motion by O’Brien, seconded by Jensen, to RECOMMEND DENIAL OF Baker said he was concerned about five driveways within 150 feet. Zisla stated creating a private road is the part of the proposal he did not like. Zisla said spoiling the neighbors’ view did not color his decision. The issue of public versus private streets was the feature he could not approve. Livingston said the entire property should be considered as a PRD, but he would vote against this proposal because of its piecemeal nature. Baker called for a vote on the motion. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. LP-310, PUD-6 Industrial Equities Mattila reviewed the case report concerning an application for a PUD concept plan for a 13.6 acre industrial site and site plan review and approval of Phase One of the proposed PUD. Mattila showed slides of the site. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1996\05-21-96.WPD 4