Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 10, 1996 <br />approval of the police and Fire Chief and was supported by Herr. Motion carried <br />6 -0. <br />Chair Schaps left the meeting at 8:10 p.m., and Mr. Johnson presided over the <br />meeting as Acting Chair. <br />VI. Discussion Items <br />A. Peltier Lake Subdivision /Roadway Extension <br />Ms. Wyland indicated the property on the map that is owned by Mr. McGill. It is <br />north and east of Peltier Lake and zoned rural. Mr. McGill would like to construct <br />a home on a separate lot of record from a 90 -acre parcel. Rather than putting in <br />a very long driveway (approximately 1/2 mile), he would like to see a City street <br />constructed. The property owner is willing to dedicate the necessary right -of -way <br />for the road. <br />Mr. McGill indicated on the map what he believes to be a logical progression of <br />residential development in the area and showed the road connection that he <br />believes would make sense and be safer than a long driveway to access <br />property he has. He would need to create the smaller lots because of the <br />expense of the road. An access off 77th Street would relieve future traffic on <br />20th Avenue that will result from industrial and commercial development. There <br />is an easement which indicates that at some time thought was given to future <br />access. The adjoining property owner would be willing to dedicate the additional <br />right of way needed. However, at the same time they would like to split their 5 <br />acre parcel into two. Staff would not recommend approval of a 2 1/2 acre <br />subdivision as the ordinance currently requires 10 acres in this location. He <br />would like input from the Board before pursuing the project further. <br />Mr. Johnson stated that a road may be needed to support development to the <br />north. He asked if there is development potential north of Mr. McGill's property. <br />Mr. McGill stated that there are 10- and 20 -acre parcels north of him, and <br />development is perhaps 15 years into the future. <br />Mr. Wessel stated that it is difficult to respond to this proposal without staff input. <br />Staff has not had the opportunity to meet with the property owners. He <br />suggested a meeting with staff, so that specific suggestions can be brought to <br />the Board. <br />Mr. Johnson agreed that more information would be needed to respond to the <br />proposal. <br />Mr. Gelbmann expressed concerns about the 10 -acre minimum. <br />11 <br />