03/12/2003 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 47 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Rafferty asked what was the difference between this proposed road and other proposals that had been made previously by other applicants. Mr. Grochala replied this road would service more than one residence, where the other proposals serviced only one driveway. He expressed concern about the maintenance of the road and questioned if a road was going to fit. Mr. Lyden stated he did not have an issue with the 20 -foot gravel road. However, he would like the cul -de -sac not to be there. Ms. Lane asked what the Ordinance said about paved accesses. Mr. Grochala replied this was a rural district and they were not required to have paved accesses. Chair Schaps thanked staff for their working on this and pushing it through the process. He stated he agreed with a 20 -foot road, but did not believe paving it was necessary. He stated he believed they needed to add more than 5 inches of gravel though. He questioned the easement for one of the driveways. Mr. Grochala replied that should be a part of the association agreement. He said the ingress /egress for that parcel should be included in this process. Mr. Hyden stated he was not in agreement on the road. He asked what other development did they approve where they did not require a paved road. He stated what was being proposed was the development of the property and gaining from that development and now they were making another concession. He stated the other issue was what was easier to maintain and where did all of the gravel go after three or four winters. Chair Schaps noted the number of trips on the road was going to be very minimal, but they may want to, in the event, it was developed where it was right now, a paved roadway should be required. It was up to the association to maintain the road. Mr. Hyden stated they needed to be fair to everyone who came before them. Chair Schaps stated this was a unique situation and if another development came in, it would be applied to the same standards. Ms. Lane noted the difference in her mind was that this was zoned rural and had minimal traffic. Mr. Grochala stated Mr. Keefe wanted to have the road less than 20 feet wide, which he would not recommend. Chair Schaps noted the reason they did PDO was to give all sides flexibility. He noted traffic would be minimal in this development. Mr. Grochala stated the road has always been an issue as pieces have been split off. He stated staff wanted something that would work. • Mr. Lyden agreed that the PDO was to look at unique pieces of property. He believed they were not being inconsistent in their decision. DRAFT MINUTES