Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning; Commission <br />March 14, 1985 <br />Rocky Waite <br />(Cont.) <br />Mr. Waite pointed out that City policy has been against long cul -de -sacs, <br />but informed the Commission that when the Schrier property developed, <br />there was a road easement in the area that was taken out. Waite also <br />stated that he feels this proposal would buffer the Iona Lane <br />residents from some heavy commercial development. <br />Mr. HerkenhofE asked if a public hearing would he held on this <br />proposal. <br />Mr. Grittman replied that the Planning Commission has 60 days in which <br />to act on this proposal, but it could he scheduled for public hearing on <br />the 27th of this month if the Planning Commission acts at tonight's <br />meeting. <br />The Planner also stated that if the development began soon, the water <br />system could be looped through with the Schrier development. <br />Mr. Costa asked how the mini- storage would be accessed. Mr. Waite <br />explained that access would be along the side of the property where <br />the car wash access would be. <br />The Planner stated that a PUD zoning may he necessary for this proposal, <br />as there are two principle uses on one piece of property. Mr. Waite <br />stated that he would not be opposed to a PUT) zoning. <br />Mrs. Timmons expressed concern because the plan presented does not <br />show further use of the property and then, ^__is a lot of property that <br />is only shown as empty space. Mrs. Timmons felt that the Iona Lane <br />residents would like to see plans for the whole property. Mrs. Timmons <br />suggested that Mr. Waite bring back a more detailed plan showing <br />screening, lighting, buffering from the residential area, etc. <br />Mr. DeLonais stated that the Commission does not have enough information <br />to act on the proposal and pointed out that the Commi.ssiion.has not <br />received a Planner's report. <br />Mr. DeLonais asked the setback of the mini- storage from the Iona Lane <br />property. Mr. Waite replied that the setback would be 10 feet. The <br />Planner pointed out that there is a 40 foot setback on the sideyard <br />from residential property. However, if the property went PUD, this <br />is where some trade -offs can occur. <br />Mr.. DeLonais recommended that the Rocky Waite proposal be tabled <br />pending a more detailed plan and additional information. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Ducharme. <br />Motion carried 9 - 0. <br />Mr. DeLonais suggested that Mr. Waite work with the Planner on his <br />proposal. <br />Page -2- <br />