My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-26-96 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
06-26-96 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:48:46 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 26, 1996 <br />Ron Palmen, property owner, felt the Brausen property <br />division was a similar situation. <br />Scalze noted the Brausen lot is U-shaped and has 75 <br />feet of frontage on a public road. <br />Palmen proposed the lot be L-shaped with 75 feet of <br />frontage on McMenemy Road. However, the house would <br />still access McMenemy Road via a shared driveway over <br />2360 McMenemy Road. Palmen reported that he would like <br />to sell the lot to Voosen and Pelletier so that they <br />can build a house. Palmen indicated he and his wife <br />are planning on building a house as well. Both houses <br />would be positioned so as to not interfere with future <br />development of the area. <br />Fahey suggested the Council act on <br />has been presented and shows a lot <br />an improved street. Fahey suggest <br />with the Planner to come up with a <br />how the area could be developed or <br />that has frontaqe on McMenemy. <br />the diagram which <br />with no frontage on <br />~d the applicant work <br />drawing that shows <br />results in a lot <br />Voosen stated that she had hoped these sorts of <br />concerns would have been worked out at the Planning <br />Commission meeting, and pointed out the Commission <br />recommended approval of their proposal. <br />Fahey felt part of the problem was the City Planner did <br />not make a recommendation on the proposal, therefore, <br />the Planning Commission did not have much guidance. <br />Fahey felt the Planner should have worked with the <br />applicant to eliminate the need for a variance, rather <br />than presenting this request as is. Fahey stated that <br />he was not in favor of accessing lots via private <br />driveways, and felt that the Council had to treat such <br />requests consistently. <br />Pedersen indicated it is difficult to act on this <br />request since all the Council has is a sketch and it is <br />difficult to see just what the applicant is proposing. <br />Voosen felt if the issue of road frontage had been <br />brought up earlier, the plan could have been revised to <br />address this concern. <br />Fahey replied that the City Engineer took a broader <br />look at the issue and has raised concerns. Fahey noted <br />the Hoffman property is a large piece of property which <br />is accessed via a 30-foot wide driveway. This property <br />has presented problems in the past in that additional <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.