Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />June 13, 2001 <br />Page 29 <br />Mr. Lyden asked if the cul -de -sac could be brought the opposite way. Mr. Ruus stated that had <br />not been looked at and he was not sure if the previous designer had looked at those options or <br />not. He stated they were limited however by wetlands and topography. He also indicated that by <br />doing that, he did not believe it would eliminate access off of 12th and Holly. <br />Mr. Corson made a MOTION to closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. and was supported by <br />Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he would like to see the lot lines realigned to create a better neighborhood. <br />He would strongly support that effort so it would all come off of the same cul -de -sac. Mr. Ruus <br />stated he understood the Board's concerns, but Lot 8 could be the problem. He stated Lot 1 was <br />more workable. <br />Chair Schaps also agreed in combining Lots 1 and 2 and splitting Lot 8 uus stated if that <br />was the direction, they would need to start all over He indicated th-, onomi'mpact would <br />affect them and they would need to redesign this area Mr. Raffe r.r e ssed is concern about <br />them starting over again because of the loss of two lots. He st, d t w _; ry close to being a <br />very acceptable plan without redesigning the whole area. <br />Mr. Ruus stated it was his understanding this was wh <br />wa`ooking for. <br />Ms. Lane stated she did not have concern about s °`•ts gad 8, but did have concerns about the <br />• access on 12th and Holly and would not suppo t is bec. se of that <br />Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny t <br />Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. <br />Chair Schaps stated the reasons <br />1. There was a re <br />2. There was no pligh <br />property. <br />3. There is an <br />4. Not applicab <br />at application, and was supported by Ms. <br />o w'`al w- e as follows: <br />use the property in question. <br />the landowner due to physical circumstances unique to this <br />consideration. <br />5. The Ordinanc `' °did allow for reasonable use and there was also a question of access <br />and safety. <br />With respect to the preliminary plat, the reason for denial was because of access and safety <br />issues; no neighborhood consistency; and not all driveways being located on the cul -de -sac. <br />J. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street, <br />Rezone, Amended C.U.P., Amend Zoning Ordinance <br />This item was withdrawn by applicant. <br />• Chair Schaps reopened the hearing at 11:00 p.m. <br />There being no comments made, the public hearing was closed. <br />