Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 13, 1996 <br />Motion seconded by Keis. <br />Motion carried 4 - 0. <br />PROPERTY Mary Kay Voosen and Bradley Pelletier appeared before <br />DIVISION & the Commission requesting the creation of a single - <br />VARIANCE - family lot as well as approval of a variance from the <br />MCMENEMY, requirement for single - family lot frontage on an <br />PALMEN improved street. The property in question is owned by <br />Ron and Patricia Palmen. Voosen and Pelletier would be <br />purchasing the lot and constructing a single - family <br />home. <br />Keis asked about the future plans for development of <br />the area. <br />The City Planner reported that at one time the Palmen's <br />submitted a sketch plan showing how the property could <br />be platted. <br />Reis asked if the driveway which would serve this lot <br />would be in the same location as the future street <br />which would be needed if the property were platted. <br />The City Planner replied that the location of a future <br />street would be based on information necessary at the <br />time the property is platted. Street location would be <br />submitted along with grading and drainage plans. <br />Voosen reported that the Palmen's have no plans to <br />develop this property at this time. Voosen pointed out <br />that the Palmen still have lots on Viking Drive which <br />have not been sold. <br />Reis asked about the sanitary sewer force main proposed <br />for the new lot, and what would happen should the area <br />be platted and sewer, water main and street are put in. <br />The City Planner suggested that the property would be <br />assessed for sewer, water main and street improvements <br />at the time the area is developed. A concern is that a <br />future owner of the property would not be aware of <br />this. Therefore, the Planner recommended that the City <br />enter into a Development Contract with the Palmen's as <br />well as Voosen and Pelletier which would spell out the <br />specifics regarding future improvements. The Planner <br />also suggested that the City require a Waiver of Right <br />to Appeal Future Assessments as a condition of the lot <br />Page 33 <br />