Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 26, 1996 <br />development has been proposed and denied because of the <br />limited access. <br />Palmen stated that by requiring access on an improved <br />road, the City would be cutting off the wetland area <br />which he thought the City eventually wanted access to. <br />Palmen pointed out that then the City will have several <br />property owners to deal with rather than just one. <br />Fahey indicated he would like to see the grand plan for <br />the area with the wetland clearly delineated and left <br />as an outlot. <br />Palmen pointed out the lot location proposed takes into <br />account a future 50-foot road easement as well as <br />utilities. The driveway is located in approximately <br />the same area as a future road would go through. <br />Voosen presented a concept of how the area could be <br />platted which Pelletier described for the Council. <br />Voosen reported that the City Engineer has seen this <br />concept plan. The concept consists of 18 single-family <br />lots. <br />Fahey noted that this is the first the Council has seen <br />it, and the Council does not have the benefit of the <br />Planner's or Engineer's input on the plan. <br />Scalze pointed out the proposed road would touch a lot <br />of properties which front on McMenemy Road and Viking <br />Drive, and felt these property owners should have input <br />on the plan. <br />Fahey suggested the property division and variance be <br />denied as presented because of the fact that access is <br />being proposed via a private driveway and the applicant <br />is proposing a well rather than connection to City <br />water main. <br />Pelletier pointed out that water main is about 560 feet <br />away on McMenemy Road and 480 feet away on Viking <br />Drive. There is a fire hydrant at the end of the <br />property which could be used for fire protection <br />purposes. <br />Morelan pointed out the 29 acres is in one lot at this <br />time, and a home could be built anywhere on the <br />property. If the property is divided into two lots as <br />proposed, one of these lots is non-conforming because <br />there is no frontage for the new lot on a public road. <br />Morelan stated that he would like to see a plat of the <br />14 <br />